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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

In Cllr Todhunter’ s absence Cllr S Johnson, as Vice-Chairman chaired this meeting of Planning Committee.

Cllr S Johnson welcomed all present to the meeting and read out the emergency evacuation procedures.

Apologies were received from Cllr’s Briscoe, Burton, Cross, Quail and Todhunter.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 6 November 2024.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 6 November 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 11(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.

Change of use of land for the provision of six pitches for gypsies and travellers including associated access tracks, parking and turning areas.

Defer for further information.

Mr Mew presented the report. He drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an amendment to the report showing the correct extent of the location plan.

Mr Mew highlighted the site location, which partly fell within the settlement boundary of Birdham, and noted its proximity to the Chichester Harbour National Landscape.

Mr Mew showed Committee the proposed layout and explained that each pitch was designed to accommodate one mobile home, two vehicles and a touring caravan.

Mr Mew detailed the proposed access arrangements.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Elizabeth Hamilton – Birdham Parish Council

Mr Daniel Holmes – Objector

Ms Dawn Appleton – Agent

Mr Iain Ballantyne – Chichester District Councillor

Before opening the debate Cllr S Johnson invited Mrs Stevens to clarify where the new development of 150 homes was in relation to the proposed site. Mrs Stevens explained the planning permission referred to by the speakers was the site known as land at Main Road, Birdham and had been permitted through appeal. She highlighted the site’s proximity to the application being considered.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns over the size of the pitch; Mr Mew confirmed the size of the site was 73m x 44m and further detailed the distance between each of the proposed pitches. He confirmed the proposed spaces were suitable and adequate for the provision of two vehicles, a static caravan, and a touring caravan.

On the matter of biodiversity net gain; Mr Mew explained the application had been submitted before the requirement for application to deliver a biodiversity net gain and was therefore exempt.

Regarding the use and ownership of Pinks Lane; Mr Mew explained the lane was private, he acknowledged concern raised by the Committee, however, he reminded them that any future disputes over the use of the lane would be a civil matter and were not a material planning consideration. He explained the applicant had advertised a cert D as the road was unregistered and followed the all the correct planning procedure in submitting the application.

Addressing concerns of the proposed drainage scheme; Mr Mew explained a pre-commencement condition (condition 6) had been proposed to ensure the site would be satisfactorily drained.

Regarding the impact of the proposed development on the settled community; Mr Mew informed the Committee officers had considered this and addressed the impact within their report. he advised the Committee that it would be very hard to defend a decision for refusal because of harm caused to the settled community.

Regarding the foul sewage connection; Mr Mew confirmed the application proposed a connection to the foul sewer which would require a main drain to be installed along the lane.

Addressing concerns over the width of the access road; Mr Mew acknowledged concerns raised. However, he explained condition 8 had been proposed to ensure appropriate access and a turning circle for refuse vehicles and fire engines was provided and maintained. In addition, officers had liaised with colleagues from waste collection services, they  ...  view the full minutes text for item 328.

CC/24/01884/FUL - Alteration to shop front tiles and painting of existing render, windows and doorframes.

CC/24/01885/ADV - Display of 2 no. externally illuminated signs, 1 no. non illuminated menu board sign and 2 no. non illuminated signs incorporated into 2 no. awnings

CC/24/01884/FUL - Permit

CC/24/01885/ADV - Permit

Miss Haigh presented the report. She outlined the site location which was within the Chichester Conservation Area.

Miss Haigh showed the proposed changes to the shopfront elevation.

Miss Haigh detailed the proposed advertising displays, she confirmed the ‘washroom’ sign was not visible from the public realm.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the Advert and Shop Front Guidance document; Miss Haigh acknowledged comments; however, she reminded the Committee that the document was only guidance. The applicant had fully complied with some elements such as hand painting the street number and the trough lighting. The proposals were consistent with what had been previously in place.

Responding to comments made by the City Council; Miss Haigh confirmed officers had considered comments submitted by the City Council and were addressed within the report.

The Committee took the following votes;

CC/24/01884/FUL:

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

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

CC/24/01885/ADV:

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

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

Application for the approval of all reserved matters (access, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) following outline planning permission CH/20/01139/OUT for the erection of 1 no. 3 bed dwelling in garden to south of existing house

Permit  

Mr Mew introduced the report and highlighted the site location.

The Committee were shown the proposed elevations and materials that would be used.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Mew clarified that the enforcement case referenced on page 73 was a completely separate application. In addition, Mrs Stevens clarified the outcome of the application being considered would have no bearing on the appeal decision.

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

Resolved; permit, subject to the proposed conditions and informatives.

Retention of two mobile homes for a temporary period of 24 months during construction of 1 no. 4 bedroom dwelling permitted under SI/10/01835/REM.

Permit

Miss Haigh introduced the report and outlined the site location. She explained the site was not visible from the highway.

Miss Haigh explained a further temporary permission was sought to allow the applicant time to complete their building.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Miss Haigh explained that the provision of two caravans on site would not normally be acceptable, however, these will only be in situ for a temporary period.

Miss Haigh acknowledged the frustrations over the number of historic temporary applications granted and the length of time taken by the applicant to develop the property. Some of the reasons for why the development was taking so long were addressed in the officer report. In addition, Mrs Stevens agreed officers could convey the Committee’s frustrations to the applicants outside the meeting.

Miss Golding confirmed the caravans could not remain there permanently as they only had a temporary permission.

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

Resolved; permit, subject to the proposed conditions and informatives.

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 introduced the report and highlighted the recent appeal decisions.

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.

Mrs Stevens introduced the report.

The Committee agreed to note the report.

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.