Agenda, decisions and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday 5 February 2020 9.30 am

Venue: Committee Rooms, East Pallant House. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Email:  democraticservices@chichester.gov.uk

Items
No. Item

19.

Chairman's Announcements

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

Minutes:

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and read out the emergency evacuation procedure.

 

Apologies for absence had been received from Mr Graeme Barrett.

20.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 115 KB

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 8 January 2020.

Minutes:

Resolved

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 8 January be approved and signed by the Chairman with the amendments as requested by Rev. Bowden and Mr Oakley:

 

Item 6 - that with regards to the conclusion, that following words were added:

 

The reason for allowing the proposal was that the Committee considered that the public benefit of securing optimal use of the building outweighed the less than substantial harm that would arise as a result of the replacement windows, having regard also to the context of its surroundings, including the significant built form that exists around the application site.

 

Item 11 - that the recommendation to endorse included the full recommendation:

 

That the Planning Committee endorses the broad approach proposed for the development of the Tangmere Strategic Development Location (SDL) as set out in the draft Masterplan dated November 2019.

 

Item 12 - that the comment regarding the developers’ progress is altered to:

 

Mr Whitty has received assurance from developers that they were not stalling proceedings…………’

 

Item 13 - that a comma was added to the following sentence between the word ‘residential’ and ‘that’:

 

Members further debated how such buildings are established as residential, that they were not liable for Community Infrastructure Levy, and the type of buildings deemed convertible.

 

 

21.

Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 11 (b).

Minutes:

The Chairman reported that an urgent item would be considered under agenda item 11(b):

 

To consider the Council’s response to a High Court challenge to a planning permission recently issued to 23 Southgate, Chichester (The Vestry).

22.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 60 KB

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.

 

 

 

Minutes:

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WW/19/02489/FUL, SI/19/02417/FUL and NM/19/00677/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications WW/19/02489/FUL, SI/19/02417/FUL and NM/19/00677/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 

 

23.

WW/19/02489/FUL - Thatch End, Seaward Drive, West Wittering, PO20 8LL pdf icon PDF 803 KB

Demolition of existing dwelling.  Construction of 2 no. detached dwellings and associated works.

 

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens introduced the application.

 

Additional information was provided on the agenda update sheet, listing further information from the agent regarding proposed sustainability measures, and an additional condition in relation to the submission of a detailed scheme regarding the provision of photovoltaic cells.

 

Mrs Stevens gave two further verbal updates, the first in relation to condition 4, to include a requirement for further information regarding the prevention of litter, and the second in relation to condition 15, which required the addition of the words ‘until the’ to be inserted between the words ‘and’ and ‘car’ in the first sentence to read; ‘The dwellings hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until the car charging points…..’

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Keith Martin – Parish Council

Mrs Kerry Simmons - Agent

 

The Chairman read a statement received from Mr Barrett to be read in his absence; ‘I would therefore like to support the Parish Council and the Wells Farm Estate in objecting to this application on the grounds of over development and that it was contrary to the management policy’.

 

Members sought clarification regarding the number of proposed car charging points, whether the S106 requirement was due to recreational disturbance and if that would be line with the latest guidance, what weight could be given the Village Design Statement, the importance of the boundary hedge and whether the bin and bike store would interfere with the provision of a continuous hedge, further information regarding the size of the plot, parking and turning space and what weight should be given to the extant planning permission.  Mrs Stevens responded that the S106 recreational disturbance payment was in line with the 2020 guidance, which will change in April, with the new financial year.  The bike and bin store could be relocated to provide a continuous hedge.  The Village Design Statement carries some weight and is a material consideration, although it is not a document which has been through examination, Mrs Stevens therefore advised that the National Planning Policy Framework and the Local Plan would carry greater weight.  The existing plot size was 31 metres in width, other nearby plots 16 to 18 metres in width and the proposed plan would provide one plot of just under 16 metres and the other 15.5 metres, there was a mix of plot sizes but narrower plots were more predominant.  There was sufficient space for parking and turning and condition 15 would be amended to clarify a minimum of one car charging point per dwelling.  The extant permission was due expire imminently, however as planning permission had previously been granted, the previous granting of permission was also a material consideration.  If there has been no significant change in the circumstances on site, or change in local policy or national policy, Mrs Stevens advised that it would not be reasonable to refuse permission.   The existence of planning permission even if shortly due to lapse was is still a material consideration that carried  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

24.

SI/19/02417/FUL - Chalk Lane Nursery, Chalk Lane, Sidlesham, PO20 7LW pdf icon PDF 559 KB

Demolition of existing barn and pigsty replaced with 1 no. dwelling.

 

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Mr Power introduced the application.

 

Further information was provided on the agenda update sheet detailing an additional condition in relation to the removal the existing building, and an amendment to an existing condition regarding legislation pertaining to not constructing a building or structure on the site without planning permission being granted. 

 

Mr Power also drew the Committee’s attention to the report and explained that an omission had occurred in regards to the recommendation which should read ‘Recommendation to permit with S106’.  As with the previous application, condition 8 required the addition of the words ‘until the’ to be inserted between the words ‘and’ and ‘car’ in the first sentence to read; ‘The dwelling hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until the car charging points…..’

 

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Adrian Hadland – Parish Council

 

Members commented upon the frustrations of parcels of land in unsustainable areas being used to construct dwellings and this application would not build on the original footprint of the current building, which would be demolished and not converted.  Mr Whitty responded that he understood Members frustrations, but on a point of clarification in relation to class Q, the Parish Council have previously been, and will continue to be, consulted on Class Q applications and the current application should be considered having regard to the permission for the conversion of the existing building to a single dwelling, afforded by the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order.  With regard to the Council’s upcoming guidance on determining Class Q Prior Approvals, legislation could not be changed or policy created, the guidance was to ensure consistency in these situations was applied. Class Q related to whether a building was capable of conversion without structural intervention and this had been proved in this application and was a material consideration.

 

Members sought clarification regarding the materials to be used, whether the buildings were currently for agricultural use, that in the previous item on the agenda  the conditions relating to hours of construction and deliveries were separate, but together on this application, whether there was a planting plan, whether the cross-hatched area was the amenity area and whether the building shown was on the 1990 permission and was used for storage.  Members sought further clarification regarding whether there would be permitted development rights for another agricultural building, for which a further application for conversion may be forthcoming at a future date.  Mr Power responded that the materials would include brick walls with a tiled roof, the buildings were considered to be in agricultural use when the class Q application was considered and during the officer’s site visit for the current application there was nothing to indicate otherwise. The previous item on the agenda was within a built-up residential area and in this instance the location was rural and therefore there was less opportunity for disturbance during construction and therefore the condition in relation to hours of construction was less prescriptive.  A landscaping plan was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

NM/19/00677/FUL - South Mundham Farm, South Mundham Road, South Mundham, PO20 1LU pdf icon PDF 558 KB

Change of use of flint barns to 3 no. residential units and replacement of existing agricultural buildings with 3 no. residential units.

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Mr Power introduced the application.

 

Additional information was provided on the agenda update sheet a further condition regarding the removal of existing buildings on the site, and the summary of two letters of objection.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Timothy Russell – Parish Council

Mrs Gillian Nott – Objector

Mr Kris Mitra – Agent

 

Members sought clarification with regards to the number of proposed dwellings, the fall-back position relating to policy 46 and permitted development rights, vehicles movements likely to be generated in the absence of public transport, and whether landscaping would screen parked cars.  Members sought further clarification regarding car charging points, demolition times, potential CIL requirements, potential to control internal alterations and further permitted development rights and the threshold for the requirement of affordable houses.  Mr Power responded that the area on the plan within the red and blue lines were in the same ownership and with regards to the fall-back position, the site had two prior approvals, one for theAtcost shed to be converted to three dwellings and another for shed two to also be converted to three dwellings and under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) there is a maximum of five dwellings allowed solely under Class Q and therefore technically only one of the prior approvals could be implemented, hence the reason for having the fall-back position for three dwellings for plot numbers 4, 5 and 6.  This did not prevent six dwellings across the whole site to be permitted under two separate prior approvals.  Plot’s 1, 2 and 3 would be considered under policy 46 as conversions of existing buildings.  Mr Power summarised that were six dwellings on the site for the application, however only three were considered as part of fall-back and three as a conversion.   There are no controls over the highways movements for the existing use of the site.  Mr Power confirmed that six dwellings for the site, was not considered a significant increase compared to the existing agricultural use. A landscaping plan was provided early in the application process and small changes have been made to the layout of the proposal, with a reduction in the amount of car parking in the middle of site, and specifically changes to plot 4, and the layout also showed significant planting to the south and north side of site, and therefore a condition has been included, due the changes.  With regards to the charging points there would be one for each plot which could be confirmed by condition.  The floor-space in comparison to the fall-back position is just considering the Atcost shed which was approximately 510 square metres and plots 4, 5 and 6 was approximately 530 square metres, approximately 177 per plot, therefore there was a small but not significant increase.  Condition 20 would not control internal alteration but would control new windows, and given the eaves of the roof, it would not be possible to build another floor.   Mr Power confirmed that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions pdf icon PDF 156 KB

The Planning Committee is asked to consider the quarterly schedule for the period up 31 December 2019 which updates the position with regards to planning enforcement matters.

Minutes:

Mrs Archer confirmed that the schedule gave the CDC figures of 163 and 89 totalling 252, which should be corrected to 75 and 28 totalling 103 regarding ‘The number of ‘On Hand’ cases awaiting compliance with either an EN or the outcome of an appeal/application’.

 

Members sought an update on progress regarding WE/16/00191/CONCOU and Mrs Archer confirmed that the owners would be prosecuted for failure to comply with the notice. 

 

Mrs Archer confirmed that further action was being taken regarding 0/17/00074/CONENF.

 

Members sought an update regarding HART/SDNP/18/00587/TPO in relation to evidence not being available to demonstrate that the notice had not been complied with.  Mrs Archer responded that it had been difficult to establish who was in occupation at the property and a further visit would be taking place.

 

Members sought clarification regarding B1/15/0039/CONSH and Mrs Archer confirmed that a court hearing was currently awaited before an injunction was obtained, and the issue of additional pitches were being progressed separately.

 

Members sought clarification with regards to PS/13/00015/CONAGR and the integrity of the lagoon and Mrs Archer responded the Environment Agency which held responsibility in relation to this matter, had issued its own notice.  Mr Whitty added that the Authority had also established a multi-agency response in the event of a spillage, and that there was currently an issue with rain gathering in the plastic covering, but this was being attended to by the owners.

 

Members also sought clarification regarding progress in relation to WE/17/00403/CONENG as the owner was not currently complying and Mrs Archer responded that a review of the situation would be taking place on site. 

 

Members also sought clarification regarding progress in relation to WE/19/00217/CONCOU and Mrs Archer confirmed that the application was yet to be determined and therefore the matter could not be progressed until this had taken place.

 

27.

Chichester District Council, Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters, Between 10 December 2019 and 15 January 2020 pdf icon PDF 127 KB

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

Minutes:

Miss Golding confirmed that the additional court matter would be discussed as a part 2 matter.

28.

South Downs National Park, Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters, Between 10 December 2019 and 15 January 2020 pdf icon PDF 125 KB

Minutes:

Mr Whitty drew the Committee’s attention to SDNP/18/03665/HOUS and SDNPA/18/03666/LIS which were listed as ‘Dismissed’ in error and should both read ‘Appeal Allowed’.

 

29.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

 

There are no restricted items for consideration.

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

That in accordance with Section 100A of the Local Government Act 1972 the public and the press be excluded from the meeting during consideration of the following item on the Agenda for the reason that it was likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted that there would be disclosure to the public of “exempt information” being information of the nature described in Paragraph 7 (Information relating to any action taken or to be taken in connection with the prevention, investigation or prosecution of crime) of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act and the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing the information.

 

30.

Consideration of late item: 23 Southgate, Chichester (The Vestry). To consider the Council's response to a High Court challenge to a planning permission recently issued.

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

Minutes:

A discussion took place and it was resolved:

 

Not to contest the claim, and to authorise the Authority’s Senior Solicitor to sign a consent order to agree to the planning permission dated 9th December 2019, being quashed by the court.