Agenda, decisions and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday 11 March 2020 9.30 am

Venue: Committee Rooms, East Pallant House. View directions

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

Items
No. Item

31.

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

In the absence of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman, Mr Briscoe was proposed as the Chairman for the meeting by Mr Sutton, seconded by Mr Wilding and agreed by all present.  Mr Briscoe took the Chairman’s seat.

 

The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting, read out the emergency evacuation procedure, and confirmed to all present to be mindful of hygiene during the meeting and breaks, due to the current outbreak of the Covid-19 virus.

 

Apologies for absence had been received from Mrs Purnell, Rev. Bowden,

Mr Barrett and Mrs Fowler.

32.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 110 KB

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 5 February 2020.

Minutes:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 February 2020 be approved and signed by the Chairman with the following corrections as requested by Miss Golding and Mr Oakley:

 

That NM/19/00677/FUL – South Mundham Farm, South Mundham Road, South Mundham, PO20 1LU was permitted ‘with S106’.

 

Consideration of late item: 23 Southgate, Chichester (The Vestry) to authorise the Authority’s ‘Prinicpal’ Solicitor, and not ‘Senior’ Solicitor as recorded.

 

SI/19/02417/FUL – Chalk Lane Nursery, Chalk Lane, Siddlesham, PO20 7LW, that the name of the speaker from the Parish Council was Mr Harland and not Mr Hadland as recorded.

33.

Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 13 (b).

Minutes:

The Chairman reported that there would be no urgent items.

34.

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:

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SY/19/02962/FUL as a member of Selsey Town Council.

 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications BI/19/02797/FUL, CH/19/03029/FUL, CH/19/03030/FUL, EWB/19/00431/AGR and SY/19/02962/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

35.

BI/19/02797/FUL - Martins Cottage, Martins Lane, Birdham, PO20 7AU pdf icon PDF 433 KB

1 no. self-contained unit for tourist accommodation use.

 

Minutes:

Mr Mew introduced the application.

 

Further information was provided on the agenda update sheet regarding the review of the Local Plan, explaining that consultation on a Preferred Approach Local Plan had taken place and that following consideration of the responses, it was intended that the Council would publish a Submission Local Plan under Regulation 19 early in 2021. 

 

Further information was also provided on the agenda update sheet regarding comments from the CDC Environment Officer in relation to making appropriate provision for bats, reptiles, and nesting birds.  Further requirements were listed, pertaining to enhancements to be incorporated into the scheme for replacement of trees, planting of a wildflower meadow and filling gaps in tree lines and hedgerows.  A further five letters of objections had also been received from the same parties as previously.  Additional conditions were also listed confirming no structure shall be erected or alteration made without the grant of planning permission, and that the implementation of this planning permission would be carried out strictly in accordance with the measures concluded within the Ecological Report.  Amended conditions were detailed stating that no works should be carried out above slab level until a scheme for ecological enhancement had been submitted for approval prior to first occupation.  Details of the existing and proposed boundary treatments and walled garden shall also be submitted for approval.  The building should only be used only for holiday accommodation, and any scheme for external illumination shall also be submitted for written approval.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mrs Bernice Culley – Objector

Mr Paul White – Agent

 

Members expressed concerns that this would be a new structure in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and the scale of encroachment.  Members sought clarification regarding the lack of hedgerows on the northern and western boundaries, issues of building outside the settlement boundary and whether the surrounding land was owned by the applicant and there may be further similar applications.  Members also commented that access facilities for wheelchair users were not cited for the proposed dwelling, and that the greenhouse it was replacing, was significantly smaller.  Mr Mew responded that landscaping was listed in the conditions, and the supporting statements included hedging to the southern boundary providing connectivity to the woodland to the west enhancing ecological benefits, and that the northern boundary could be considered further.  The blue line on the plan included the field which was owned by the applicant and the red line had been tightly drawn to limit encroachment and control the site within the AONB.  Any future applications would have to be determined on their own merits.  Policy 30 allowed for tourism units to be located outside the settlement boundary in appropriate locations and no objections had been received from the Chichester Harbour Conservancy (CHC) and this was considered an acceptable site in accordance with the policy.

Mrs Stevens confirmed that the application was for a single unit which would add to the two already on the site.  The unit  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

36.

CH/19/03029/FUL - Plot C, Pond Farm, Newells Lane, West Ashling, Chichester, PO18 8DF pdf icon PDF 179 KB

To use land as a Travellers caravan site consisting of 1 no. mobile home
and 1 no. touring caravan with associated development.

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Mr Power introduced the application.

 

Further information was provided on the agenda update sheet regarding the review of the Local Plan, explaining that consultation on a Preferred Approach Local Plan had taken place and that following consideration of the responses, it was intended that the Council would publish a Submission Local Plan under Regulation 19 early in 2021. 

 

Mr Power also confirmed verbally that temporary planning permission for the siting of a caravan on the site had been granted in 2013.

 

Members sought clarification regarding sewerage and surface water, the impact on wildlife corridors and the chalk stream, whether the parish could be considered to have an area of dominance, impact on public rights of way access, if further ecological enhancement could be required and the definition of ‘Gypsies and Travellers’.  Members further commented that the district did not currently have sufficient pitches for gypsies and travellers, the site was not within flood zone two or three, and the length of time the family had been on site and become part of the community.  Mrs Stevens responded that at the current time limited weight could be given to the emerging Local Plan review in relation to wildlife corridors and the chalk stream, however it was important to limit erosion prior to the adoption of the plan, but the Environment Officer had made no objections to the application.  Mr Power confirmed that the site was within flood zone one, the impact on the bridle paths was not considered an issue by the highways authority, and any damage would be liable to the applicant.  The site was not large but there is some scope to the south and to the entrance, for landscape enhancements.  With regards to recreational disturbance payments, the agent had confirmed the applicant was willing to make that payment and was in the process of signing a unilateral undertaking.  In relation to the definition of ‘Gypsies and Trallevers’, there was a standard condition within the report, used by the authority and the Planning Inspectorate.  The foul drainage was processed via a septic tank which was permitted in the 2013 temporary permission, and the Drainage Officer considered that was acceptable.  Mr Power further explained that in terms of the effect on the settled community, a similar comment was raised in connection with the Keynor Lane appeal and the Inspector found in that instance, there would not be an over-burden and dominance within the community.    

 

Miss Golding added that the travelling show people site in Priors Leaze Lane, had been mentioned within the debate and advised this was a different and separate group, with different needs and policies, and was not relevant for the determination of this application.  Mr Whitty also confirmed that he was unable to advise how the long a single family had occupied the site, and noted that information provided from the public gallery (given as since 2006).  The site was one of a number permitted temporary permission in 2014/15. 

 

Members sought further clarification regarding  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

37.

CH/19/03030/FUL - Plot F, Pond Farm, Newells Lane, West Ashling, Chichester, PO18 8DF pdf icon PDF 410 KB

Use of land as a gypsy and travellers caravan site consisting of 1 no. pitch
containing 1 no. mobile home and 1 no. touring caravan

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Mr Power introduced the application.

 

Further information was provided on the agenda update sheet regarding the review of the Local Plan, explaining that consultation on a Preferred Approach Local Plan had taken place and that following consideration of the responses, it was intended that the Council would publish a Submission Local Plan under Regulation 19 early in 2021. 

 

Further information was also provided on the agenda update sheet detailing the siting of caravans on the plan.

 

The following Members of the public addressed the Committee: 

 

Mr Gowlett – Parish Council

Mr Angus Murdoch – Agent

Mr Adrian Moss – Chichester District Council 

 

Members sought clarification regarding temporary permission and the related notice period to residents.  Mrs Stevens confirmed that temporary permissions were are not advisable and these were generally used for a period of assessment of impacts to occur and to allow work to be completed on the Local Plan or Supplementary Planning Documents the (SPDs) to support the Local Plan.  Situations have occurred in which at appeal, Inspector had granted permanent permission, due to SPD not being produced in a sufficiently short timescale.  A temporary permission would normally run for three years although some five year temporary permissions had been granted.  Mrs Stevens advised that the Committee should be minded that this site would add to the supply, for which there was currently significant unmet need and that this was a reasonable and appropriate site which would contribute to the unmet need.  

 

RESOLVED

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

 

The Committee took a ten minute break.

38.

EWB/19/00431/AGR - Hundredsteddle Farm, Hundredsteddle Lane, Birdham, Chichester, PO20 7BL pdf icon PDF 632 KB

Grain store and machinery store.

 

Decision:

Deferred

Minutes:

Mr Power introduced the application.

 

Further information was provided on the agenda update sheet regarding the review of the Local Plan, explaining that consultation on a Preferred Approach Local Plan had taken place and that following consideration of the responses, it was intended that the Council would publish a Submission Local Plan under Regulation 19 early in 2021. 

 

Mr Power gave a verbal correction with regards to the location of the application as cited within the report.

 

Mr Power played a short video which had been requested to be shown by one of the objectors. 

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee: 

 

Mr Brian Reeves – Parish Council

Mr Graeme Maycock – Objector

Mr Julian Moore – Objector

Dr Jill Sutcliffe – Objector (from Campaign for the Protection of Rural England {Sussex})

Mrs Lesley Pardoe – Supporter

Mrs Rachel Strange – Agent

 

The Chairman sought clarification regarding ‘article 4’ and whether it should be invoked as referenced by one of the speakers.  Mr Whitty responded he presumed what had been referred to was article 4 of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) which allowed local authorities to remove general permitted rights for areas of land where there were good grounds to do so, but that was normally undertaken in advance, required consultation and was a policy-related tool rather than a reactive tool (citing the example of an article 4 for the Chichester Conservation Area which prevented the replacement of windows) which could not be used once the process had been invoked.  Miss Golding confirmed that an article 4 direction could be issued provided it was prior to the date of any approval of any prior approval. The complication was that if a prior approval was refused unreasonably, and was subsequently allowed on appeal, and in the meantime had been issued with an article 4 direction, and in this situation it was doubtful that the article 4 direction would stand. 

 

Members commented on the need to support food production which may outweigh landscape concerns, further concerns regarding the differences between officer advice and the information put forward by the parish council and objectors, and the scale of the building and traffic.  Members further commented on the considerable public interest in terms of objections, concerns regarding the location on a green site, near to the road and the belief that agricultural buildings were required to be clustered together, and with regards to the GPDO, that it was within 25 metres of the highway. 

 

Members sought clarification between the application and a ‘full’ application. 

Mr Power advised that the proposed building was not within 25 metres of a classified road and confirmed the applicant was not proposing any alterations to the access.  In regards to the scale of the building, policy 45 allowed for agricultural buildings to be located within the countryside, provided size, scale and materials used would have minimum impact.  The size and scale of the farm had to be considered including the requirement for the storage of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

39.

SY/19/02962/FUL - Land West Of Tidewall Cottage, 85 East Street, Selsey, Chichester, PO20 0BU pdf icon PDF 486 KB

Erection of 1 no. dwelling.

 

Decision:

Refuse

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens introduced the application

 

Further information was provided on the agenda update sheet regarding the review of the Local Plan, explaining that consultation on a Preferred Approach Local Plan had taken place and that following consideration of the responses, it was intended that the Council would publish a Submission Local Plan under Regulation 19 early in 2021. 

 

Further information was also provided on the agenda update sheet stating that the applicant had submitted further information and photographs in support of the application.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Mike Sully – Parish Council

Mr Derek Garrett – Objector

Dr Felicia Hughes-Freeland – Objector

Mr Seymour Baker – Objector

Mr Neil Kimber- Applicant

Mr John Elliot – Chichester District Council

 

Members commented on the issue of the road in which the proposed dwelling would be sited being narrow and difficult for pedestrians with the volume of traffic and that a further smaller piece of pavement could aid this situation, the value of the tide wall in heritage terms, and an awareness that the applicant had retained the material which had broken away from the wall which could be used to rebuild the wall in the new proposed position.  Members further commented on the change to the street scene if the proposal was permitted and sought clarification regarding the requirements for rebuilding the wall.  Mr Broadway explained that there would be a requirement to reconstruct the wall in an appropriate manner on the grounds of its significance in a conservation area and reminded Members that the current position of the wall was crucially important and should be preserved as a tidewall 

 

Members sought further clarification regarding access to the site.  Mrs Stevens responded that there was no other access to the site, and it was important to consider that the proposals included removing a substantial part of the wall.  With regards to the conservation area character appraisal which was a material consideration, the walls made a significant contribution to the conservation area and it was important that they were preserved.  One of the recommended actions when the area was designated as a conservation area was that the District Council would continue to protect historic boundary walls from demolition.  The proposal included the relocation of a flint wall, in the same design as the adjacent wall with flint panel and brick in-fill.  This wall  was constructed prior to the area being designated as a conservation area and was considered overly harsh and dominant within the street scene. 

Members sought clarification as to whether there was an obligation to rebuild the wall if it fell down.  Mr Whitty confirmed there was no requirement to rebuild the wall and that the position within the street scene was favoured for its close-knit appearance. 

 

Members sought further clarification regarding hedging and car charging point and further commented upon the eclectic mix of buildings within the road.  Mr Whitty advised that if permission was refused, it was likely that the plot would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

40.

Chichester District Council, Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters Between 16 January 2020 and 19 February 2020 pdf icon PDF 177 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:

Mr Whitty drew the Committees attention to 17/00061/CONENG – Land North of Cowdry Nursery, Sidlesham Lane, Birdham which related to a decision regarding a barn which the authority had allowed to be converted under prior approval, prior to the requirement for the integrity and structure of the building to be taken into account.  However, in converting the barn it had been almost demolished and re-built and therefore was not a conversion.  At appeal the Inspector agreed it was not a conversion and the appeal was dismissed and as the original barn had been demolished it could not be argued that the applicant had a fallback position of demonstrating it could be converted.  Mr Whitty confirmed that full demolition would be required.  

 

Mr Wilding returned to the room.

 

Mr Whitty drew attention to the update sheet which provided a summary of the appeal which was allowed for SB/18/03145/OUT – Land North of Crooks Lane, Southbourne.  This was a disappointing decision which related to 199 dwellings outside the policy area adjacent to Breach Avenue, a site of 34 dwellings which had been allowed by the Inspector.  The Council challenged this decision which was Judicially Reviewed, and lost and gone to the Court of Appeal which had also been lost.  This application was wrapped around the Breach Avenue site.   The Inspector had recognised that the Council had a five-year housing supply, but the appellant had argued that from June 2020, the Council would cease to have this.  This matter was noted by the Inspector, although confirmed as not at the forefront of his deliberations.  The Inspector took other policies into account including the Local Plan, which suggested that development should not take place in this location, but concluded that was out-weighed by the Governments desire for housing and therefore considered it would boost the five-year housing supply.  Mr Whitty confirmed that Counsel’s opinion would be sought and that advice would be brought back to the Committee.  Should the advice be for a Judicial Review, officers would normally rely upon delegated powers to take that forward, but whether it should be brought to Committee would be dependent upon the outcome, and what was in the interests of ensuring probity.  Mr Whitty also confirmed that dependent upon any costs related with that, a Cabinet decision may be required.

41.

South Downs National Park, Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters Between 16 January 2020 and 19 February 2020 pdf icon PDF 32 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:

Members of the Committee did not require any further information.

42.

National Design Guide pdf icon PDF 191 KB

That the Committee notes the updated design guidance and how it can be used to inform new development proposals.

Minutes:

Mr Price gave a presentation regarding a brief overview of Government position in the value of design in the planning process.

 

Mrs Sharp left the room and did not return.

 

Mr Price confirmed the presentation would be sent to all Members via email.

 

Members sought clarification regarding the matter of carbon-neutrality associated with design.  Mr Price confirmed that this information was contained within Building Regulations, and added that it was imperative that the Council moved forward with a robust policy.

 

Members sought further clarification regarding whether considerable weight should be given to this guide or await further advice.  Mr Whitty confirmed that currently the Council should follow its own policies and a consultation would take place in relation to the guide.

 

Members sought further clarification regarding the scope of the document and whether it referenced design as a place-making function as opposed a sustainability function, as it was limited in relation to energy efficiency.  Members further queried the extent to which the guide and national model design code would have weight over and above Neighbourhood Plans and Village Design Statements.  Mr Whitty responded it would have the same effect as the National Planning Policy Framework, and any Neighbourhood Plan, Village Design Statement or Local Plan and once the guide was in place would have general conformity.  The question would then be what weight would be given, and if this guide came into force after a current Neighbourhood Plan, although that would require further consideration before Members were advised.  Mr Whitty added that the core of planning was related to place-making, with other elements such building regulations which must be considered. 

 

Members further commented that the guide was to be welcomed.  

43.

Consideration of any late items as follows:

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:

There were no late items.

44.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

The committee is asked to consider in respect of the following item(s) whether the public interest including the press should be excluded from the meeting on the grounds of exemption under Parts I to 7 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as indicated against the item and because, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption of that information outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.The reports dealt with under this part of the agenda are attached for members of the Cabinet and senior officers only (salmon paper)

 

Or

 

There are no restricted items for consideration.

Minutes:

There was no requirement to exclude the press and public.