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be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications (agenda items 5 to 12)which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

[DETAILS IN MINUTES]

Miscellaneous Matters

Mr Hayes welcomed everyone to this meeting and explained the Chichester District Council (CDC) emergency evacuation procedure. He acknowledged the two press representatives who were in attendance and introduced the CDC officers who were present at the start of the meeting. Other CDC development management officers would be present later in the meeting for specific agenda items.

Apologies for Absence

There were two apologies for absence, namely Mr Dunn and Mrs Tull. All other members of the Planning Committee were present. 

Items Deferred or Withdrawn

Mr Hayes announced that the planning application at item 9 (FU/17/02187/FUL – Land South of Osiers Clay Lane Funtington West Sussex) had been withdrawn from the agenda and would not therefore be considered at this meeting.

[Note Hereinafter in these minutes Chichester District Council is denoted by CDC]

The Planning Committee is requested to approve as a correct record the minutes of its ordinary meeting on Wednesday 13 June 2018, a copy of which is circulated with this agenda.

[APPROVED WITH AN AMENDMENT]

The Planning Committee received the minutes of its previous meeting on Wednesday 13 June 2018 which had been circulated with the agenda.

Mr Oakley proposed one amendment to minute para 178 on page 3 with regard to application TG/17/01699/FUL – Tangmere Airfield Tangmere Road Tangmere:

·       In the third bullet point which relates to condition 6, the text should also include a reference to the benefits for biodiversity of an open water drainage ditch so as to read: ‘To specify a requirement for an open surface water drainage ditch, unless otherwise justified, as these are easier to maintain and better for biodiversity.’ 

Mr Hayes confirmed that this would be an appropriate amendment. None of the committee members demurred. Accordingly it was agreed to incorporate that amendment.

There were no other proposed changes to the minutes.

With respect to minute para 182 (Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters) and the reference on page 6 of the minutes to the agenda update sheet entry for Land North West of Birdham Farm Birdham Road Chichester, Mr Oakley requested an update. He was advised that this would be provided by Mrs Archer during agenda item 14 (Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions). 

Decision

The Planning Committee voted in favour of making the resolution set out below.

RESOLVED

That the Planning Committee approves the minutes of its meeting on Wednesday 13 June 2018 subject to the aforesaid amendment on the third page with respect to the third bullet point in minute para 178.

Accordingly Mr Hayes signed and dated the final (sixth) page of the official version of the minutes.

The chairman will advise of any late items which will be given consideration under agenda item 15 (a) or (b).

[NONE]

There were no matters for consideration under agenda item 15 (a) or (b) (Late Items).

For 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, please refer to pages 7 to 8 of this agenda.

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 are sometimes also declarations by members that they will not participate in the discussion of and decision on a particular item for various reasons eg predetermination or bias.

[DETAILS IN MINUTES]

The obligation to make declarations of interests related to agenda items 5 to 12 inclusive.

A – Disclosable Pecuniary Interests

Disclosable pecuniary interests have been introduced by section 30 of the Localism Act 2011 and are set out in paras 3 to 7 of Part 3 of CDC’s Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012. They are interests that either the member has or is aware that his or her partner has. Where such an interest exists the member concerned must declare it. Unless the member has previously received a dispensation to do so from the Monitoring Officer, he or she may not participate in any discussion of or in any vote taken on that item of business. The member concerned must move to the public seating area for the duration of the item of business in question and from that area he or she may make representations, answer questions or give evidence relating to that item of business, provided that he or she has received a dispensation from the Monitoring Officer to do so.

There were no declarations of a disclosable pecuniary interest made at this meeting. 

B - Personal Interests

Personal interests are defined in paras 8 and 9 of Part 4 of CDC’s Code of Conduct adopted on Tuesday 9 October 2012. They include (as set out on pages 1 and 2 of the agenda for this meeting) membership of parish councils, West Sussex County Council, outside organisations or public bodies where those local authorities, organisations or bodies have been consulted in respect of a planning application or another relevant agenda item.

Miss Golding explained that the personal interests set out on pages 7 and 8 of the agenda were to be taken as having been declared by the member concerned in respect of the relevant planning applications in agenda items 5 to 12 inclusive where such consultations had taken place.

There were eight members of the Planning Committee who made the following declarations of personal interests:

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SB/18/ 00048/FUL (agenda item 10) as a Chichester District Council appointed member of the Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications BX/18/00696/FUL (agenda item 5), CC/18/00798/FUL (agenda item 7), CC/18/ 01064/FUL (agenda item 8), SB/18/00048/FUL (agenda item 10), SY/18/00595/FUL (agenda item 11) and WW/17/03295/FUL (agenda item 12) as a member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Hayes declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SB/18/00048/FUL (agenda item 10) as a member of Southbourne Parish Council.

Mr Hixson declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/18/00192/ADV and CC/18/00196/LBC (agenda item 6), CC/18/00798/FUL (agenda item 7) and CC/18/01064/FUL (agenda item 8) as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in respect of planning application applications CC/18/00192/ADV and CC/18/00196/LBC (agenda item 6), CC/18/00798/FUL (agenda item 7) and CC/18/01064/FUL (agenda item 8) as a member of Chichester City Council.

Mr Oakley  ...  view the full minutes text for item 186.

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

Development of site to provide 22 residential units, access, public open space, landscaping, car parking

RESOLVED

Defer for section 106 agreement then permit with amended condition 14 (surface water drainage) and additional conditions relating to (a) archaeology watching brief, (b) estate management including parking and (c) planting on southern edge of site adjacent to A27

Mr Whitty presented this planning application for the development of the site to provide 22 residential units, access, public open space, landscaping, car parking. There was currently pending an application for the same site which had been deferred by the Planning Committee in November 2017 for further negotiations and was now the subject of an appeal against non-determination.  

Mr Whitty explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) an aerial photograph (features, constraints, facilities identified); (b) a map; (c) a coloured site/layout plan; (d) photographs affording various views of the site including access and of houses in Priors Acre; (e) artist drawings of the unit designs; (f) a panoramic street scene perspective with details of styles, materials, scale and design; (g) drawings of the types and proportions of the houses; and (h) drawings of the turnings for the largest refuse vehicles which would need to visit the development once completed.

Mr Whitty drew attention to the agenda update sheet which reported (a) amendments to paras 2.1 and 8.3 of the report; (b) a further third party objection; and (c) a proposed extra condition 28.

The following member of the public addressed the Planning Committee on this item:

(a)  Mr G Beck – agent for the applicant

During the debate members asked questions and made comments on points of detail about various matters (in respect of which differing views were expressed) and received advice and answers from Mr Whitty and Mr Frost:

·       Road layout in the development and parking provision (for residents and visitors) and control, including enforceability of on-site parking restrictions via an estate management plan.

·       Location of the affordable housing at the southern end of the site by the A27 (noise and air pollution issues – relevant also to the children’s play area) and whether this represented the best possible integration (pepper-potting) of those housing units across this site.

·       The need for new residential development to meet highest standards of design (Policy 33 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029) did not appear to have been satisfied in this case.

·       The design and visibility of the southern boundary acoustic fence and how it might be landscaped.

·       The suitability and size of the public open space on the northern area of the site given its proximity to a pumping station.

·       The need for condition 14 (surface water drainage scheme) to contain an express reference to a ‘1 in 100 year + 40% for climate change critical storm event’ (para 6.9 of the agenda report).

·       The desirability of an archaeological watching brief condition to be added to the grant of planning permission notwithstanding the response of the CDC archaeology officer (para 6.11 of the report).

·       The absence of pavements on the site with pedestrians (not uncommonly) using the shared surface estate roads.

Officers confirmed, and this was supported by the Planning Committee, that conditions could be added or amended with respect to (a) an archaeology watching brief; (b) the surface water drainage condition making  ...  view the full minutes text for item 187.

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

One no externally illuminated projection sign, one no externally illuminated fascia sign and one no internally illuminated menu sign

RESOLVED

(1) CC/18/00192/ADV

Permit

(2) CC/18/00196/LBC

Permit

Mrs Stevens presented this planning application for one no illuminated projection sign, one no externally illuminated fascia sign and one no internally illuminated menu sign (this was the description in the report but it was amended in the agenda update sheet as stated below).

Mrs Stevens explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) a site plan showing where the signs would be positioned; (c) photographs of the restaurant’s frontage; (d) drawings of the proposed designs; (e) a coloured photograph montage of the restaurant frontage; and (f) photographs of the exteriors of three Zizzi restaurants elsewhere in the country.

Mrs Stevens drew attention to the agenda update sheet which reported an amended description of the development for the listed building consent application so that it included the painting of the ground floor of the building as follows:

‘Painting of the building in Dulux Azure Fusion 1 weather proof breathable paint and door frames and window frames in Farrow & Ball London Clay. Installation of 1 no illuminated fascia sign, 1 no illuminated projection sign and 1 no illuminated menu sign.’

No members of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item.

Mr Hayes expressed his regret that Chichester City Council had not sent a representative to speak in view of its objection to these applications having resulted in them being listed for determination by the Planning Committee.

During the debate all but one of the members who spoke were in favour of the two applications. The restoration of the construction date of the original building and the proposed colour scheme and lighting were welcomed.

One member expressed concern about the departure from the shopfront guidelines insofar as the non-use of painted lettering on the frontage instead of the proposed copper letters. He said that this would be the latest example of a significant number of shops and businesses in the city which failed to comply with those guidelines, the aggregate effect of which was to have an adverse impact on the city’s important streetscape. He alluded to the response made by the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee (para 6.2 of the agenda report).

Mrs Stevens advised that officers considered that the proposals complied with the shopfront guidelines. Whilst this was an historic building, it did not have a traditional Victorian shop front compared with other buildings and there was built up plastic lettering on the building previously so the proposal was acceptable. CDC’s Historic Buildings Advisor made no objection (para 6.3 of the report). She gave details of the dimensions of the proposed trough light, which had been scaled down to comply with the shopfront guidance.

Decision

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands by 12 to one with no abstentions in favour of the officer recommendations in the agenda report for each of the applications as set out below.

RESOLVED

(1) CC/18/00192/ADV

Recommendation to permit agreed.

(2) CC/18/00196/LBC

Recommendation to permit agreed.

[Note At the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 188.

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of two no dwellings

RESOLVED

Refuse for (a) overdevelopment and (b) adverse impact of increased on-street parking on residential amenity

[Note This decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation]

Mrs Stevens presented this planning application for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection in its place of two dwellings.

Mrs Stevens explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) ground floor plans; (c) drawings of the proposed buildings; and (d) photographs of the extant dwelling-house from the front and rear, its relationship to the adjacent properties, and the street scene.

Mrs Stevens drew attention to the agenda update sheet which reported (a) an amended version of condition 5 (not 4 as stated) set out on page 63 of the agenda namely:

‘No development shall commence until a strategy outlining details of the sustainable design and construction for all new buildings, including water use, building for life standards, sustainable building techniques and technology, energy consumption maximising renewable resources, and how a reduction in the impacts associated with traffic or pollution will be achieved including but not limited to charging electric vehicles, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This strategy shall reflect the objectives in Policy 40 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029. The approved strategy shall be implemented as approved prior to first occupation unless any variation is agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: To minimise the impact of the development upon climate change. These details need to be agreed prior to the construction of the development and thus go to the heart of the planning permission.’  

and (b) an additional condition 9 (boundary treatments), namely:

‘Prior to first occupation of the dwelling(s) hereby permitted the associated boundary treatments shall be provided in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include:

(a)            scaled plans showing the location of the boundary treatments and elevations to include finished height and

(b)            details of the materials and finishes.

The boundary to the front of each property shall have a solid brick wall to ensure the bin storage area is screened from the street.

Thereafter the boundary treatments shall be maintained as approved in perpetuity.

Reason: In the interests of protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties and the visual amenity of the surrounding area.’

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item:

(a)  Mr J Templeton – objector

(b)  Mr D Seaman on behalf of Mr L Murray – objector

(c)  Mr P Cleveland – agent for the applicant

During the debate a majority of members expressed concerns about the proposal, the principal points relating to (a) overdevelopment and (b) the adverse impact of increased on-street parking on residential amenity. Whilst it was felt that the design was an improvement on the previous withdrawn applications and the replacement of the bungalow itself in favour of a two storey building would be an improvement within the street scene, it was felt that:

·       The proposed development would constitute overdevelopment of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 189.

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

Change of use of existing building (former ambulance station) to church (D1 use including some B1 space) including minor external alterations

RESOLVED

Permit

Mr Sims presented this planning application for a change of use of existing building (former ambulance station) to church (D1 use including some B1 space) including minor external alterations.

Mr Sims explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) location plans; (b) floor plans; (c) drawings; and (d) photographs of the front and rear elevations. Of the five main considerations identified in section 8 of the report, Mr Sims cited (i) principle of development with reference to Policy 26 (Existing Employment Sites) in the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and (ii) impact on highway safety. He said that officers were satisfied in respect of these and all salient issues and hence the recommendation was to permit.

Mr Sims drew attention to the agenda update sheet which clarified paras 8.2 and 8.3 of the agenda report with regard to class use and coherence with Policy 26 aforesaid.

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item:

(a)  Mr D Thompson – on behalf of the applicant

(b)  Mrs P Dignum – CDC member (Chichester South) as a supporter

During the debate a majority of members spoke in support of the application and commended the community benefits which the proposed use of the building would afford. One member in particular, however, expressed concerns about the loss of employment land by virtue of the proposed change of use (six employees working for Grace Church did not assuage his reservations) and the troubling precedent this might set for other sites. Having regard to the West Sussex County Council Highways response in para 6.2 of the agenda report, another member also questioned the adequacy of the car parking provision.

Mr Whitty responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail with respect to (a) any BI use would be ancillary to the D1 use (condition 4); (b) adequacy of the on-site parking provision and the availability of nearby on-street parking in Terminus Road; (c) DI use would not permit regular or frequent overnight sleeping on the premises; (d) the justification on the merits of this case for the loss of BI use having regard to the fact that the former ambulance station was not employment use safeguarded by Policy 26 (Existing Employment Sites) and the evidence submitted as to the unsuccessful outcome of the employment use marketing exercise undertaken. 

Decision

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands by ten (with three abstentions) in favour of the officer recommendation in the agenda report for the application as set out below.

RESOLVED

Recommendation to permit agreed.

[Note At the end of this item there was a short adjournment between 11:50 and 11:57]

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

Permanent stationing of mobile home to support equestrian business

[Note Withdrawn from agenda and so not considered at this meeting]

As stated by Mr Hayes at agenda item 1 (Chairman’s Announcements) and reported in the agenda update sheet, this planning application had been withdrawn from the agenda and so it was not discussed or determined at this meeting.

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

Creation of new access onto A259 to serve lawful B8 uses

RESOLVED

Permit with amended conditions 4 (access visibility splays) and 5 (landscaping/planting scheme) and additional condition 6 (replacement planting)

Mr Sims presented this planning application for the creation of a new access onto the A259 to serve lawful B8 uses.

Mr Sims explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) location and site plans and (b) photographs affording various views of the site. He drew attention to the response from West Sussex County Council Highways in section 6.2 of the agenda report. He referred to the principal issues set out in section 8 of the agenda report, which included the loss of a section of hedgerow (para 8.4). 

There were no entries in the agenda update sheet in respect of this item.

The following member of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item:

(a)  Miss A Tait (Southbourne Parish Council) – parish representative as an objector

During the debate a majority of members spoke in favour of the application. However, several members expressed concerns and felt unable to support it for various reasons: (a) the unapparent rationale for the creation of the access; (b) the change in the street scene which lay within the AONB by the removal of a section of the hedgerow; and (c) the effect of articulated vehicles entering the site.

Mr Sims, Mr Frost, Miss Golding and Mr Whitty responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail with respect to (a) the need for the new access for design and visibility reasons, which would be safer in highway terms than the current access; (b) the length of the hedgerow that could or needed to be removed; (c) the inclusion of a condition (not opposed by the applicant) to preclude HGVs from accessing the site in view of the current B8 use; (d) the desirability in view of traffic speeds on the A259 of reducing the visibility splays for the proposed access from 90 m to 59 m (condition 4); (e) the amendment of condition 5 (landscaping scheme) to include the existing hedgerow within its scope; and (f) the compatibility of the access with the extant street scene.

Officers advised that in the light of members’ concerns and comments there was a justification to amend or add certain conditions to the grant of planning permission namely:

(a) amended condition 4 (visibility splays) to substitute 59 m for 90 m; (b) amended condition 5 (landscaping scheme) to include a reference to the existing hedgerow; (c) additional condition 6 to require replacement planting within five years; and (d) additional condition 7 (no HGV access).

Decision

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands by seven to five against and one abstention in favour of the officer recommendation in the agenda report for the application as set out below.

RESOLVED

Recommendation to permit with amended conditions 4 (access visibility splays)and 5 (landscaping/planting scheme) and additional conditions 6 (replacement planting) and 7 (no HGV access).

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

Construction of D2 building for private gym and health club with associated access, car parking and landscaping (alternative use to that approved under LPA ref SY/17/02137/FUL)

RESOLVED

Refused

[Note Immediately prior to the commencement of this application Mrs Purnell and Mr Wakeham withdrew from the committee table and sat in the public seating area throughout its duration, in accordance with their declarations of interests as recorded in minute para 186 above]

Mr Bridge presented this planning application for the construction of a D2 building for private gym and health club with associated access, car parking and landscaping (alternative use to that approved under LPA ref SY/17/02137/FUL).

Mr Bridge explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan (area and features described); (b) elevation drawings; (c) floor plans; (d) a colour layout plan; and (e) photographs affording various views of the building, the site and Manor Road. He identified from section 8 of the agenda report the principal issue as being the loss of employment land and the appropriateness of alternative use (paras 8.4 to 8.14). 

There were no entries in the agenda update sheet in respect of this item.

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item:

(a)  Mr C Alden (Selsey Town Council) – parish representative as an objector

(b)  Mr K Byrne – applicant

(c)  Mr J Connor – CDC member (Selsey North) as a supporter

During the debate a majority of members spoke in support of the officer recommendation to refuse the application for the reasons given in the agenda report.

In dissent from the majority opinion, other members were inclined to adopt a pragmatic approach in favour of granting planning permission in that the fact that the proposal constituted an opportunity to provide much-needed employment on the Manhood Peninsula and in a sustainable location should not be disregarded notwithstanding non-compliance with the marketing evidence prerequisite laid down in Policy 26 (Existing Employment Sites) in the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP)).  

Mr Whitty and Mr Frost responded to members’ questions and comments on points of detail with particular emphasis on the need to ensure compliance with the aforesaid policy requirement for a two-year marketing exercise, which the applicant had not satisfied in this case. The CLP was only three years old and premature decisions should not be taken which would be in contravention of clearly established planning policies and thereby undermine the integrity of the adopted CLP and which was currently undergoing a review. It was open to the applicant to submit a further application in due course subject to the outcome of the full marketing exercise.

Decision

The Planning Committee voted on a show of hands by eight to two against and three abstentions in favour of the officer recommendation in the agenda report to refuse the application.

RESOLVED

Recommendation to refuse agreed.

[Note After the determination of this application Mrs Purnell and Mr Wakeham returned to the committee table]

[Note At the end of this item there was a short adjournment between 13:01 and 13:11]

The Planning Committee is asked to consider and determine this planning application for:

Change of use from public highway pavement to residential garden use

[Note This application was deferred at the Planning Committee’s meeting on Wednesday 16 May 2018 for a site visit by members (scheduled to take place on Monday 16 July 2018) and for officers to seek further advice from West Sussex County Council Highways]   

RESOLVED

Permit

Mr S Shaw (West Sussex County Council (WSCC) County Highways Manager) was in attendance at the committee table for this item.

Mr Whitty presented this application for a change of use from public highway pavement to residential garden use.

The application had been deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting on Wednesday 16 May 2018 for a member site visit and for officers to seek further advice from WSCC Highways. The site visit took place on Monday 16 July 2018. The additional information from WSCC Highways appeared in bold in para 6.2 on pages 110 to 111 and in the planning comments in paras 8.6 to 8.12 on pages 115 to 116 of the agenda report. 

Mr Whitty explained the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) a drawing of the pavement area in question; (c) a plan dated 1988 showing the original hotel on the site with a wide pavement and lay-by for the likely use of coaches bringing guests (which could explain the width of the present pavement); and (d) photographs affording various views of the pavement in both directions.

The agenda update sheet reported additional third party representations: (a) two letters of objection, (b) comments by the applicant on third party matters, (c) West Wittering Parish Council’s response to the applicant’s comments and (d) a letter from WSCC Legal Services on the process to be followed if planning permission were to be granted.

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee for this item:

(a)  Mr M Lawson (East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council) – parish representative as an objector

(b)  Mr B Buckland (West Wittering Parish Council) - parish representative as an objector

(c)  Mr B Couchman – objector

(d)  Mrs C Barton -  objector

(e)  Mrs J Culverwell – objector

(f)    Mr P Collard - applicant

(g)  Mrs E Hamilton – CDC member (West Wittering) as an objector

(h)  Mrs S Taylor – CDC member (East Wittering) as an objector, who also spoke on behalf of her co-ward member Mr K Martin

Prior to the debate Miss Golding and Mr Hayes advised respectively that members should not take into account (a) comments made by the speakers with regard to WSCC selling the land to the applicant or this matter being referred to the ombudsman and (b) seeking costs against the local planning authority if an appeal were to be made against refusal.

Also prior to the debate, Mr Shaw summarised the approach taken by WSCC Highways in assessing the highways aspects presented by this application, namely (a) the changing ie seasonal use of Shore Road during each year; (b) the relevant local planning policy criteria, the National Planning Policy Framework and planning guidance factors taken into account relevant to this application; and (c) the entirely separate roles and functions of  WSCC in this matter as a local authority and as a private landowner.  

During the debate a majority of members spoke in favour  ...  view the full minutes text for item 194.

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

[NOTED WITH DISCUSSION]

The Planning Committee received and noted the schedule of planning appeals, court and policy matters circulated with the agenda.

The agenda update sheet reported further information for section 6 of the schedule (Court and Other Matters) with respect to two High Court cases, namely: (a) River Farm Brookfield Lane Tillington and (b) Breach Avenue Southbourne. 

Reference was made by Mr Whitty or members to the following items in the schedule:

Section 2: Decisions Made

·       SY/16/03997/OUT – Land on the South Side of Warners Lane Selsey West Sussex (page 122)

·       O/17/00074/CONENF – Decoy Farm Decoy Lane Oving Chichester West Sussex PO20 3TR (page 123)

Section 3: Current Appeals

·       CC/17/01712/FUL – Whyke Lodge Residential Care Home 115 Whyke Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 8JG (page 127)

The Planning Committee is asked to consider the quarterly schedule for the period up to 30 June 2018 which updates the position with regard to planning enforcement matters.

[NOTED WITH DISCUSSION]

The Planning Committee received and noted the schedule of outstanding contraventions for the period to 30 June 2018 circulated with the agenda.

The agenda update sheet contained no entries for this item.

Mrs Archer was in attendance for this matter.

Mr Hayes remarked that Mrs Archer’s colleague Mr R Hawks (Assistant Manager Planning Enforcement) was due shortly to leave the employment of CDC. In recognition of his hard work over many years and wishing him well for his next period of endeavours, Mr Hayes asked Mrs Archer to convey the Planning Committee’s very best wishes to Mr Hawks. 

Mrs Archer referred members to and commented on the key points in the statistical summary on page 132 of the agenda. The number of current cases had decreased. The systems error which had affected target dates had been rectified.

Reference was made by members to the following items in the schedule with responses provided by Mrs Archer:

·       BI/15/00194/CONTRV – Land North West of Birdham Farm Birdham Road Chichester (page 139)

·       BI/15/00194/CONTRV – Land North West of Birdham Farm Birdham Road Chichester (page 139)

·       BI/15/00139/CONSH - Land North West of Birdham Farm Birdham Road Chichester (page 139)

·       BI/15/00139/CONSH – Access Track and Hardstanding - Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road Chichester (page 139)

·       BI/15/00139/CONSH – Land North West of Premier Business Park Birdham Road (page 140)

·       O/17/00274/CONBC – Land at Colworth Manor farm Colworth Lane Colworth (page 146)

·       PS/13/00015/CONAGR – Crouchland Farm Rickmans Lane Plaistow (page 147)

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the chairman during agenda item 3 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

[NONE]

There were no late items for consideration at this meeting.

There are no restricted items for consideration by the Planning Committee at this meeting.

[NOT APPLICABLE]

There were no restricted items for consideration at this meeting.