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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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 all present to the meeting, in particular Cllr Weller who was attending first Committee meeting. He thanked Cllr Sharp for her work over the years as a Committee Member.

The Chairman read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

The Chairman informed the Committee that agenda Item 5 had been withdrawn from the Agenda in order to allow officers to seek clarification on the weight that should be given to Paragraph 14 of the NPPF and advice in the written ministerial statement (19 December 2023) in the decision-making process. 

Apologies were received from Cllr Bates and Cllr D Johnson.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 15 May 2024.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 15 May 2024 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 13(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.

There were no declarations of interest.

Demolition of existing equestrian buildings and structures and the erection of 26 no. dwellings, together with the provision of public open space, parking, landscaping and access improvements.

Witdrawn from agenda

As announced by the Chairman agenda item 5 had been withdrawn.

Demolition of existing public conveniences and construction of a boundary fence to neighbouring property

Delegate to officers to determine following the expiry of the consultation period.

Miss Haigh presented the report. She drew attention to the agenda update sheet which included an amended location plan; additional representations and an amendment to the recommendation. In addition, Miss Haigh informed the Committee there was an error in paragraph 6.7 of the report, the report stated that there was a public toilet within the public library on West Street, however, this was not correct as there is no public toilet within the library.

Miss Haigh outlined the site location and highlighted the proximity of other public conveniences within the area, there were also toilets available at the Novium museum and Cathedral during opening hours.

The Committee were shown the current elevations, the building would be demolished and a new boundary fence of 1.8m would be constructed between the site and neighbouring property.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Anne Scicluna – Chichester City Council

Mr Alan Green (Chairman of Chichester Area Advisory Committee) – Objector

Mr Cedric Mitchell – Objector

Mr Richard Childs – Objector

Cllr James Vivian – CDC Ward member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows.

On the matter of replacement toilets; Mrs Stevens advised the Committee that it was the Council’s intention to replace the toilets, a decision at Cabinet the previous day had agreed to the release of funds from reserves for this purpose. She explained the application being considered was not accompanied with designs for the new toilets as it was unlikely the replacement toilets would require planning permission. Local Authorities have certain permitted development rights, and it was anticipated the replacement toilets would be allowed through this right (Mrs Stevens did caveat that until final design were seen she could not guarantee this would be the case).

Responding to the suggestion of conditioning the period of time between demolition and replacement; Mrs Stevens reminded the Committee the recommendation was to delegate to officers and therefore they were not able to determine conditions However, officers acknowledged the concerns raised and when determining the application would liaise with the Estates team to ensure there was an appropriate turnaround between demolition and replacement. In addition, Mrs Stevens informed the Committee that it had been agreed at Cabinet the toilets would not be demolished until after the summer period.

On the provision of temporary signage to alternative toilet; Mrs Stevens acknowledged the comments and would liaise with officers. 

Mrs Stevens advised the Committee that the concept designs shown at Cabinet were not part of the application and at this time were not in the public domain.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the amended recommendation as set out in the Agenda Update sheet to delegate to officers to determine following the expiry of the consultation period.

Resolved; delegate to officers to determine following the expiry of the consultation period.

Use of land for the stationing of a caravan for residential purposes, together with the formation of hardstanding and associated landscaping.

Refuse against officer recommendation.

Miss Haigh presented the report.

She outlined the site location and its proximity to the wider site on Newells Lane.

Miss Haigh highlighted the site access and proposed layout, drawing attention to the proposed tree and hedgerow planting.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Jane Mottershead – Funtington Parish Council

Mrs Rosie Palin – Agent 

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows.

Responding to concerns of domination in the local area; Miss Smith acknowledged comments; however, she reminded the Committee the application had previously been considered at appeal and was only dismissed due to the moderate harm caused from nitrogen. This issue had now been adequately addressed, with the proposed nitrogen mitigation approved by both Natural England and Officers.

Miss Smith advised the Committee that a Planning Inspector would not provide a numerical definition of what dominance was, they will consider each application on its own merit. 

On the issue of community impact; Mrs Stevens acknowledged concerns raised; however, there was no evidence to support any reason for refusal. The Council were currently in the process of appointing a Gypsy and Traveller Liaison officer who would act as a liaison between the settled community and the gypsy and traveller community to help build relations. She clarified that the role would not be part of the planning team.

Regarding the incremental increase in sites; Mrs Stevens advised the Committee this argument had been tested at appeal and was not successful.

Regarding future enforcement of conditions; Miss Smith assured the Committee that the Enforcement Team would investigate any breaches.

Having listened to the discussion and officer advice, Cllr Briscoe proposed the Committee refuse the application on the grounds of dominance over the settled community.

Cllr Brookes-Harmer seconded the proposal.

Before moving to the vote, Mrs Stevens acknowledged the frustration felt by the Committee, however, she advised the reason for refusal was not sound, it would be very high risk to defend and there was a high chance that costs would be awarded against the council on grounds of unreasonable behaviour.

She further explained there was nothing in planning policy which provided any definition in terms of dominance. There was also a very high unmet for gypsy and traveller sites within the district.

Having listened to the advice Cllr Briscoe confirmed his proposal still stood, Cllr Brookes-Harmer still seconded.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the Cllr Briscoe’s proposal to refuse the recommendation, against officer advice.

Resolved; Refuse, due to domination over the settled community.

*Members took a ten-minute break.

Change of use of land for the sitting of 1 no. showman's mobile home with storage of associated vehicles and equipment.

Refuse, against officer recommendation

Miss Haigh presented the report.

She outlined the site location and showed the proposed layout.

Miss Haigh confirmed there was a local connection as the applicant would be relocating from a site on Priors Leaze Lane.

Using his discretion, the Chairman informed the Committee that he had allowed a late representation from Westbourne Parish Council.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Richard Hancock – Westbourne Parish Council

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows.

Miss Haigh informed the Committee the applicants were moving from the site on Priors Leaze Lane as it was now too constrained for their family.

On the matter of the Westbourne Neighbourhood Plan; Miss Haigh drew the Committee attention to paragraph 8.5 of the report which detailed how officers had assessed the application against the Plan.

Miss Haigh explained what the ‘associated vehicles’ would be.

On the matter of drainage; Miss Haigh acknowledged the road had suffered from flooding and confirmed there was no positive means of drainage at the site. However, following further investigation the Drainage officer believed the flooding was mainly due to a blocked culvert which had now been cleared. To prevent any future flooding being caused from the development, the Drainage Officer had recommended certain conditions which would be attached to any permission given.

Cllr Briscoe proposed the Committee refuse the application for the following reasons;

-       The application was in breach of WNP OA3 as there was an available pitch elsewhere in the Parish.

-       It was an unsustainable location.

-       It would have a negative and adverse impact on the landscape.

Mrs Stevens acknowledged the concerns raised however; she advised caution against refusing because the application was in breach WNP OA3. She reminded the Committee that there was a significant unmet need within the district which meant greater weight was applied to providing appropriate sites.

In addition, she explained the landscape was not designated and in officer opinion the harm would not be so significant to prevent the development from going ahead.

Mrs Stevens informed the Committee the needs of a Travelling Showperson and Gypsy and Traveller were very different, it was not unreasonable to expect more hardcore to be laid at the site of a Travelling Showperson.

Miss Haigh confirmed the applicant had provided evidence of their Travelling Showperson status.

Having listened to the debate and officer advice Cllr Briscoe confirmed his proposal still stood.

Cllr Burkhart seconded the proposal.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support Cllr Briscoe’s recommendation to refuse against officer recommendation.

Resolved; Refuse, for the following reasons; 

-       The application was in breach of WNP OA3 as there was an available pitch elsewhere in the Parish.

-       It was an unsustainable location.

-       It would have a negative and adverse impact on the landscape.

Change of use of land to 1 no. private gypsy and traveller caravan site consisting of 1 no. mobile home, 1 no. touring caravan, 1 no. utility dayroom and associated development. (Variation of condition 2 of permission 20/03164/FUL - new plan with change to layout).

Defer for section 106 then permit

Miss Haigh presented the report.

She highlighted the site location, drawing attention to the public right of way which ran adjacent to the site.

Miss Haigh showed the Committee the approved layout and the proposed layout, highlighting the proposed variations.

Miss Haigh detailed the amendments to the site access and changes to the gate.

Using his discretion, the Chairman allowed a late representation from Westbourne Parish Council.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Richard Hitchcock – Westbourne Parish Council

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows.

Miss Haigh clarified the new gate layout; she confirmed that West Sussex Highways had been consulted and raised no objection.

Miss Haigh highlighted where the public footpath was, she informed the Committee that it was officer understanding the applicant would maintain and keep the natural screening as they were keen to maintain privacy.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for section 106 then permit.

Resolved; defer for section 106 then permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Replacement of existing single storey with two storey rear extension. New side and porch extensions, including bay window and the re-cladding of rear box dormers. Replacement of all upvc windows with timber double glazed casements.

Refused.

Mr Price presented the report. He outlined the site location which was situated to the north of Elsted Marsh.

Mr Price showed the Committee details of the proposed extension, including elevations and proposed wood cladding.

Mr Price drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an additional representation. In addition, he informed the Committee two further letters of support had been received and summarised the reasons for their support; it was felt the proposal was in keeping and was a reasonable way of adapting the property to meet growing family needs.

Representations were received from;

Mr Simon Harvey – Agent

Cllr Tim O’Kelly – CDC Ward Member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows.

Responding to the suggestion that the application be deferred for further negotiation; Mr Saunders explained that whilst in principle an extension at the property could be acceptable the alterations required to the application being considered went further than simple design amendments.

Regarding the proposed use of timber cladding; Mr Saunders acknowledged that timber cladding was used within the area. However, as detailed in paragraph 7.8 of the report, extensions must be designed to respect the size and existing character of the house. In addition, extensions should be subservient to the existing property, and it was felt that it did not provide an adequate degree of subservience.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to refuse.

Resolved; refused, for the reasons set out in paragraph 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 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 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.