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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The Chairman read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

The Chairman informed the committee that the planning application for Agenda item 9 (SB/19/02147/FUL – Thornham Marina, Thornham Lane) had been withdrawn by the Agent and therefore this item had been withdrawn from the agenda.

Apologies were received from Cllr Bates.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 7 August 2024.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 7 August 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 ite 15(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.

Cllr Potter declared a prejudicial interest in Agenda Item 5 (BX/23/02169/FUL – Land North West of 56 Stane Street, Halnaker).

Cllr Brookes-Harmer declared a predetermination in Agenda Item 10 (SDNP/23/02367/FUL – The Cottage, West Lavant Road, Lavant) as he already expressed an opinion on the item.

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.

Defer for Section 106 then permit

Having declared a prejudicial interest, Cllr Potter withdrew from the meeting for the duration of the item.

Miss Bell introduced the report. She drew attention to the agenda update sheet which included reference to seven representations received since the publication of the report. Ms Bell Confirmed the concerns had been considered and the report recommendation remained.

Miss Bell reminded the Committee that the application had been deferred on 7 August 2024 to allow for further negotiations to take place with regarding the number of dwellings. Ms Bell confirmed the negotiations had taken place with the applicant, who had considered the request but asked the application to be considered as presented.

Miss Bell explained all additional information and updates received since the report was last presented at Committee, including amendments to conditions 2, 26 and 37, were highlighted in bold throughout the Committee report.

Miss Bell outlined the site location, drawing attention to its border with the South Downs National Park and the scheduled ancient monument.

Miss Bell detailed the proposed layout for 26 homes; including the housing mix, elevations, and landscaping. She detailed the site access and informed the Committee there would be parking provision for 57 vehicles.

Representations were received from;

Mr Paul Butler – Objector

Ms Harriet Collier – Objector

Adam Robinson – On applicant’s behalf

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Miss Bell confirmed there was a Boxgrove Neighbourhood Plan in place, which was made in 2021.She acknowledged the Boxgrove Neighbourhood Plan team were currently working on a new NHP to be aligned with the emerging Local Plan, however, this had still to go through examination.

Miss Bell confirmed the proposed development was speculative development.

Regarding a previous refusal at the site in 2015; Miss Bell explained when the previous application had been considered the Council had a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS) and the Local Plan had just been made. The reason for refusal was due to the proposed developments impact on the openness of the area. Whilst the issue was still valid and within the planning balance, Miss Bell advised members that it must now be considered alongside other issues (not relevant in 2015) such as the need for housing.

Miss Bell clarified which areas of the site were classed as brownfield (approximately 17%) and which were classed as greenfield.

Miss Bell clarified the proposed site was outside the settlement boundary of Boxgrove but was within the Parish boundary.

Miss Bell confirmed the proposed development would deliver 26 of the 50 homes allocated within the emerging Local Plan for the Parish. However, the application was being considered on the ‘flat balance’ as the Council had a four-year housing land supply.

On the matter of the sustainability of the site; Mrs Stevens acknowledged concerns raised, however, she advised the Committee it was important to consider the housing need and what was acceptable. Recent appeal cases have seen Inspectors accept that certain services such as secondary education may be delivered up 20 minutes away from  ...  view the full minutes text for item 286.

Erection of new dwelling and garage.

Delegate to officers.

Miss Haigh introduced the report. She drew attention to the agenda update sheet which included a correction to the elevation plans.

Miss Haigh outlined the site location and showed the Committee the proposed layout, elevations, and floorplan.

The proposed development would result in the felling of 27 trees, Miss Haigh confirmed the tree officer had reviewed the proposal and agreed which trees should be felled, which retained and suggested supplementary planting as part of the landscaping condition.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Simon Oakley – Tangmere Parish Council

Mrs Kerry Simmons – Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the loss of trees; Miss Haigh acknowledged concerns; however, she reminded the Committee the Tree Officer had reviewed the proposal and officers would work with the applicant to ensure appropriate mitigation as required by the proposed landscaping condition.

Miss Haigh clarified that the site was within a conservation area and was with inside the settlement boundary. In officer opinion the development was acceptable and would continue to retain a spacious character.

Miss Haigh explained the current boundary between 3 and 4 Tangmere Road was a low-level open fence. Miss Smith agreed that it was not unreasonable to request the applicant to plant a boundary hedge between the properties, however the location of the proposed garage may need to be amended to accommodate it.

Mrs Stevens explained that the application would need to be delegated to officers to negotiate any such amendments.

Having listened to the debate Cllr Cross proposed the application be delegated to officers for decision so officers could further negotiate potential hedgerow planting.

Cllr Briscoe seconded the proposal.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the proposal to delegate to officers.

Resolved; delegate to officers.

Environmental art piece (1 no. periwinkle woven willow structure on a  hardstanding base) as part of a new art trail installation on the Medmerry Reserve.

Permit

Miss Haigh introduced the report. She drew attention to the agenda update sheet which included an additional comment of support.

Miss Haigh outlined the site location and highlighted where the sculpture would be located. The sculpture was not proposed to be a permanent fixture.

Miss Haigh informed the Committee that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) would retain control over the removal of the sculpture to ensure it did not cause damage to landscape as it deteriorates over time.

Representations were received from;

Mrs Louise Chater – Earnley Parish Council

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns regarding the proposed location and scale of the sculpture; Miss Haigh acknowledged concerns, but presumed the location and size had been chosen so the sculpture could be seen.

Miss Haigh confirmed the sculpture would be erected on a base of hard pounded stone and not concrete. The base would be restored to what it was before when the sculpture was removed. She assured the Committee there was no risk the sculpture would become a permanent fixture as the LPA controlled its removal through the proposed condition.

Regarding the proposed materials; Miss Haigh agreed the materials would deteriorate over time; however, she reminded the Committee the application was for temporary permission and its removal would be controlled by the LPA to prevent any future harm.

Mrs Stevens advised the Committee on what members should consider when determining the application. She reminded the Committee the proposed site was not within a designated landscape.

Having listened to the debate Cllr D Johnson proposed the Committee defer the application to allow officers to enter further negotiations regarding the size and location of the structure.

Cllr Burkhart seconded the proposal.

Following a vote, the Committee voted against Cllr D Johnson’s proposal. The proposal was not carried.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the proposal to permit.

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

Replacement dwelling and associated works - variation of Condition 2 of Planning Permission BI/23/02616/FUL to update approved plans to include single storey rear extension.

Permit

Mr Mew introduced the report. He outlined the site location.

Mr Mew highlighted the significant differences between the approved and proposed plans.

Representations were received from;

Mrs Kerry Simmons – Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns the new roof may be used as a balcony; Mr Mew explained a sedum roof was being proposed, however, he suggested an additional condition could be included to prevent such use in the future.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the proposal to permit.

Resolved; permit, subject to the following conditions and informatives set out in the report, and the inclusion of the new condition to prevent the roof being used as a balcony.

*Members took a ten-minute break.

*Cllr Quail left the meeting at the conclusion of the item (12.10pm)

Proposed new boaters cafe.

Application withdrawn

As announced by the Chairman this item had been withdrawn.

Conversion and extensions (2.5 storey to north and 2 no. single storey to north) of the existing dwelling to provide 5 no. dwellings with associated amenity space, landscaping, parking and associated bin and cycle stores

Refused

Mr Price introduced the report. He drew attention to the agenda update sheet which included a summary of additional supporting information from the applicant (a full copy of the document could be viewed on the Planning Portal).

Mr Price outlined the site location, which was in West Lavant. He highlighted the building proposed for development and its proximity to the public right of way which would also serve as access for the proposed development.

Mr Price detailed the proposed parking arrangements; he explained the area was a shared access with Old Park Barn.

The Committee were shown the proposed elevations, floorplans, and layout.

Before representations Cllr Potter asked for clarification regarding a potential declaration of interest. Cllr Potter explained he knew one of the speakers but only as an acquaintance, he confirmed he was not a close friend. Ms Golding advised he had no interest to declare and could stay in the meeting.

Representations were received from;

Dr Michael Milligan – Objector

Mr Steve Williams – Supporter

Mr Chris Munday – Supporter

Mr Eduardo Adaz-Carroll – Supporter

Mr Youngs (Applicant) and Mr Hebden (Agent) shared the allotted three minutes.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Price clarified the building highlighted in yellow, whilst included in the planning application, it would not be developed as part of the application. He explained the building had been included to provide additional floorspace for calculations required by policy SD30. The applicant had confirmed there was no intention to develop the building.

Regarding affordability; Mr Price informed the Committee a viability appraisal had been undertaken. He explained the full appraisal had not been included within the officer report, but a summary has been. The appraisal had identified that the development would not be viable if it were required to deliver any affordable housing. No legal agreement had been put forward to deliver any affordable housing. The value of the properties would be open market and not discounted.

Members noted the Parish Council support.

The Chairman noted the applicant raising their hand; he reminded them they had already had their opportunity to speak and would not allow them to make any further representation.

Regarding the proposed parking provision; Mr Price clarified the arrangements proposed and the number of spaces to be provided (6). He acknowledged the proposals appeared tight; however, West Sussex County Council (WSCC) Highways had reviewed the plans and made no objections. Mr Price informed the Committee the parking provision did not form a reason for refusal.

Mr Price clarified the area which was shared access.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the proposal to refuse.

Resolved; refuse, for the reasons set out in paragraph 10.1 of the report.

Retention of on-site accommodation for a worker essential to the operation of a land based business.

Approved

Mr Price introduced the report. He provided a verbal update amending Condition 2 to include the following; ‘In the event of the Pondfield Farm Stables no longer operating, residential occupancy of the site would cease, and the mobile home shall be removed’.

Mr Price outlined the site location, highlighting where the mobile home was located. He explained the mobile home had been in situ for three years following the approval of a temporary permission, that permission was coming to an end and permanent permission was being sought.

Mr Price informed the Committee that an equestrian appraisal of the business had been undertaken to assess the need for a permanent residence on site. The appraisal had concluded that a permanent residence on site was justified.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the essential need for a permanent residence on site; Mr Price drew the Committee’s attention to page 199, paragraph 7.8 of the report which set out the functional need for retaining a permanent residence on site. The equestrian consultant had looked at the viability of the business and concluded the business was viable.

Mr Price explained Condition 2 could be amended to ensure residency on site would cease and the mobile home would be removed if Pondfield Farm Stables stopped operating.

Regarding concerns over dark skies; Mr Price assured members the amount of light dissipation from the mobile home was very limited.

Mr Price explained foul drainage from the home was collected in a self-contained package treatment plant.

Mr Price confirmed Pondfield Farm Stables had the correct mixed used permission to operate from the site.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the proposal to approve.

Resolved; approve, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 10.1 of the report, and the amendment to Condition 2.

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

Mrs Stevens presented the report. She drew members attention to the Sussex Brewery application which had been dismissed at appeal (page 206).

Members 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.

Members agreed to note the item.

The Planning Committee are asked to consider the attached report and make the proposed recommendation set out at 2.1;

‘That the Planning Committee consider and agree the attached responses to the consultation questions for submission in response to the government consultation on ‘Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system’

Mrs Stevens presented the report, Mr Whitty, Divisional Manager for Planning Policy was also in attendance. 

Mrs Stevens drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which set out an amended response to Q93. The amendment was proposed following concerns raised by members of the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel.

Members discussed the proposed responses.

Regarding Q9 & 10; Mr Whitty explained why a 5% buffer zone was considered appropriate.

Regarding chapter 4; Mr Whitty informed the Committee the only housing list available was the Affordable Housing register.

Mrs Stevens asked members to forward any additional comments or proposed amendments by Wednesday 18 September. These would then be considered in the final response (including the amendment on the Agenda Update Sheet) which would be agreed in consultation with the Chairman before submission.

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.