Chichester District Council
Agenda, decisions and minutes

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: Virtually

Contact: Sharon Hurr on 01243 534614  Email:  shurr@chichester.gov.uk

Link: To listen to the live broadcast recording please follow the link which will direct you to the live broadcasting webpage

Items
No. Item

88.

Chairman's Announcements pdf icon PDF 238 KB

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

 

Apologies for absence had been received from Rev. Bowden.

 

89.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 92 KB

The minutes relate to the meetings of the Planning Committee held on 6 May 2020, 13 May 2020 and 3 June 2020.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

That the three sets of minutes of the meetings held on 6 May 2020, 13 May 2020 and 3 June 2020 be approved and signed by the Chairman with the following correction to the minutes of 13 May 2020:

 

LX/19/01498/FUL – Land at Nursery Green, Loxwood, RH14 0SA - ‘…delivery vehicles are capped at a 10 metres in height’, which should be recorded as ‘….10 metres in length’.

 

90.

Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item15 (b).

Minutes:

The Chairman announced that an urgent item would be taken at 15b on the agenda: Covid-19 Signage Report.

 

Mr Oakley explained he had requested and received information from officers regarding the issue of posting site notices during the current pandemic.  Mr Whitty confirmed that he would forward the details of this correspondence to all Members of the Council for information.

 

91.

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 KD/20/00389/FUL, PS/19/02182/FUL and SI/19/01193/FUL as a member of West Sussex Council.

 

Mr Potter declared a personal interest in respect of planning application   SDNP/19/02132/HOUS as an appointed member of South Downs National Park Authority.

 

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications KD/20/00389/FUL, PS/19/02182/FUL and SI/19/01193/FUL as a member of West Sussex Council.

 

 

92.

KD/20/00389/FUL - Lower Barn (Near Chandlers Barn), Skiff Lane, Wisborough Green, RH14 0AA pdf icon PDF 424 KB

Demolition of Lower Barn and construction of 1 no. dwelling as alternative to Class Q Prior Approval (KD/19/00484/PA3Q).

Decision:

Permit.

Minutes:

Mr Price presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided in the Update Sheet.

 

The Committee received the following speaker:

 

Tony Piedade – Parish Council

 

Mr Price responded to Members’ comments and questions.  Mr Price explained that the design had been negotiated to keep the glazing to a minimum to ensure light emissions were limited to concur with the Dark Skies policy, and a condition had been included regarding the requirement for external illumination to be in accordance with an approved lighting scheme.  Landscaping conditions had also been included and the curtilage drawn tightly to retain control of the extent of the landscaping.  Mr Price further noted that the surrounding land was also owned by the applicant and some planting had already taken place along the boundary of the footpath. With regards to complying with Class Q guidance, there were some minor discrepancies, but holistically Mr Price considered the result was a development which was more easily assimilated into the landscape. Mr Price also confirmed that a new build must be constructed to meet building regulations and therefore would be more energy efficient.

 

In response the question of altering the condition in relation to ecological enhancements, Mr Whitty explained that in accordance with procedure, conditions could not be applied which required details prior to commencement without the applicants consent, and added that the relevant condition was well drafted and secured the requirements.  Mr Whitty agreed on the matter of the application not according with the Local Plan or policy 46, but explained other materials matters must be considered.  In regards to Class Q, there was limited control and policy could not be applied, as when Class Q was granted, particular matters only could be considered in accordance with Government mandate, for example noise, and highway impact, which resulted in a situation pertaining only to Class Q.  Mr Whitty also confirmed that Class Q did not exist within the National Park, and that Class Q was now removed from new agricultural buildings.  Mr Whitty added that Government required local authorities to impose local conditions only when absolutely necessary and timings must be appropriate, which was the reason for the Government introducing that conditions prior to commencement, must have the applicants consent.

 

With regards as to whether the adjacent field could become a garden, Mr Price confirmed the parameter was drawn tightly to ensure that any attempt to change the land use around the development would require planning permission, and should this occur without the grant of planning permission, enforcement could be applied.  Mr Price also confirmed that the proposed footprint of the new building was the same as the existing building, but the roof profile had changed to provide an improved aesthetic. 

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

 

Members took a five minute break.

 

93.

PS/19/02182/FUL - Little Springfield Farm, Plaistow Road, Ifold, Loxwood, RH14 0TS pdf icon PDF 755 KB

Part demolition of existing outbuildings with the retention of one industrial unit (Unit B); Change of use of retained industrial unit (Unit B) from Class B2/B8 to B1(c)/B8; and, erection of 8 no. detached dwellings, play area, landscaping and associated works.

Decision:

Refuse.

Minutes:

Miss Bell presented the item to Members.

 

The Committee received the following speakers:

 

Sara Burrell – Parish Council

Paul White - Agent

 

Miss Bell responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to the amount of employment the site would generate, taking into consideration the size of the plot, number of building and designated usage (part B8 and B1C) it would be a significant number, but could not provide a precise figure.  Light pollution from the proposed limited number of roof-lights could be controlled by way of a condition.  There was an expectation that security lighting would be installed but light emission could be minimised, and the access road would not be lit.  With regards to the area being located within a flood zone, a condition would be included stating that the floor level would be no lower than 29.2 metres ‘above ordnance datum’.  On the matter of whether the proposal was an efficient use of land for housing, the site was wider than the allocation of the Neighbourhood Plan which drew the boundary tight to the employment development, and this was the reason for the highlighting of an inconsistency with the plan.  With regards to the open space, a development of eight dwellings would not trigger such a requirement (which was ten units) and fifty units would trigger the requirement for an equipped play area.  With regards to further dwellings at a future date, the submission of a planning application would be required.   Miss Bell confirmed that residential gardens would be expected to have close boarded fencing and the developer had also given an undertaking that trees would be planted and a landscaping proposal would be expected.  With regards to foul water, Miss Bell believed this location may be too great a distance from the sewer to connect with it and the Environment Agency had commented that the development may require an environmental permit which was obtained via a separate process, although had not raised an objection.  Miss Bell confirmed the access road currently served the employment land and therefore was likely to be suitable, but would need to be maintained, and details of all surfaces within the site itself would be required.  On the matter of the timing and current status of the Neighbourhood Plan, Miss Bell partially agreed that had the neighbourhood plan been a made document, and had an application been submitted which met the requirements of the made neighbourhood plan, the recommendation would have been positive, but added that the application did not wholly comply with the neighbourhood plan and the neighbourhood plan was not currently a made document.  On the matter of the loss of the industrial unit, the Inspector had accepted this at the previous appeal and therefore the application could not be refused based on this loss. 

 

With regards to the refusal for the original planning application, Miss Bell drew the Committee’s attention to the appeal inspector’s comments which included stating the proposal to be unsustainably located, but would not result in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 93.

94.

SI/19/01193/FUL - Units 1 To 7 Purchase Farm, Easton Lane, Sidlesham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 7NU pdf icon PDF 526 KB

Vehicular access; use of buildings for purposes within Use Classes B1 and B8 and for vehicle and boat repair and maintenance; retention of 4 no. portacabins and 5 no. storage containers for ancillary purposes; extension to existing parking areas with associated landscaping(retrospective application).

Decision:

Delegate to Officers.

Minutes:

Miss Bell presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided in the Update Sheet.

 

The Committee received the following statement and speakers:

 

A statement from Sidlesham Parish Council (read, and noted as not endorsed by Cllr D Johnson)  

 

Jill Sutcliffe – Objector

Yvonne Tulloch – Objector

Simon Wallace – Objector

Dan Gick – Supporter

Paul White – Agent

 

Miss Bell responded to Members’ comments and questions.  Miss Bell confirmed that there was a 2010 permission in place.  There was an area of hardstanding which was currently a car park, which would be reinstated.  This would provide a habitat suitable for Great Crested newts and the ecologist would be consulted on any amended details for this area.  Miss Bell further suggested that Members may also wish to support an informative for trees in addition to planting around the boundary of the area.  Currently on site were ten portacabins, four of which would remain.  Miss Bell also reminded the Committee that much of the development may take place under the 2010 permission and the current application was not considered an extensive increase.  With regards to vehicle movements a full assessment had not taken place.  In the relation to the restricted occupancy position, the use was already established under the 2010 permission.  Miss Bell explained that two conditions specifically related to a Noise Mitigation and Management Scheme, and the noise levels must be adhered to.  The agent had also mooted putting additional acoustic measures in place in their address to the Committee.  A further condition also related to storage being located within the main building and not externally.  Foul drainage conditions had not been included on the original permission and current changes would not require a condition in this regard, however should incidents occur, the environmental protection team would become involved.  On the matter of the uncontrolled and retrospective application, Miss Bell explained that a considerable amount of negotiation had taken place and a much improved application had resulted from that work.     

 

Mr Shaw confirmed that the applicant had not provided information regarding the number of trips likely to be generated and agreed those details may have been helpful, but the 2010 permission was a material planning consideration, many of the trips were permitted under that consent and they would not be significantly different in comparison with the current application.  Mr Shaw added that the level of information requested must be only what is explicitly required to determine the application.  Mr Shaw confirmed that he was not aware of any specific congestion caused by the development.  The road was not ideal but a review of the road safety record for the whole of Eastern Lane documents only one accident in the last six years.

 

Mrs Archer confirmed that the land which was currently hardstanding and was to be reinstated was at present subject to an enforcement notice therefore, any failure to undertake works would be supported by the notice formally, if compliance was not achieved.

 

With regards to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

95.

SI/20/00622/FUL - Red Barn, Selsey Road, Sidlesham, PO20 7NE pdf icon PDF 407 KB

Erection of new build dwelling as alternative to planning permission SI/17/02510/FUL for Change of use of building from Class B8 (Storage) to Class C3 (Dwellinghouse) along with associated external changes to building. (Variation of condition 2 from planning permission SI/19/01545/FUL - Changes to fenestration).

Decision:

Permit.

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens presented the item to members. 

 

Mrs Stevens responded to member’s comments and questions.  With regards to dusk-dawn screen/blinds for the proposed windows, Mrs Stevens advised that they were not recommended as a condition as the windows were at low level, they were not required on other windows, there were limited public views and therefore, screens were not considered necessary.

 

Mrs Stevens also confirmed that with regards to a S106 a unilateral undertaking had been secured and therefore the recommendation was to permit with a S106.

 

In a vote members agreed the recommendation.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

 

96.

WW/20/00700/FUL - 1 and 2 West Cottages, Cakeham Road, West Wittering, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 8LQ pdf icon PDF 405 KB

Demolition of existing pair of semi-detached houses and replacement with 2 no. detached houses (re-submission of WW/18/02850/FUL).  (Variation of condition 2 of permission WW/19/00243/FUL - apex window to plot 2).

Decision:

Permit.

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens presented the item to the members. 

 

The Committee received the following speakers:

 

Bridget Wright – Parish Council

Kerry Simmons – Agent

 

Mrs Stevens then responded to member’s comments and questions.  Mrs Stevens explained that the applicant had agreed to install a dusk-dawn screen/blind to restrict light spillage and this was included in the conditions.   Mrs Stevens confirmed that other windows within the development were not subject to the dusk-dawn screen/blind condition.  The dwelling was not within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which was subject to the Dark Skies policy, and this was also not included in the Local Plan or Village Design Statement.  With regards to the protective fencing, Mrs Stevens confirmed that would be required, until all construction equipment, materials and soil had been removed.   Mrs Stevens added that the conditions had been updated to reflect the point in construction which had been reached.

 

In a vote members agreed the recommendation.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

 

97.

WH/20/01615/NMA - Chichester Contract Services, Stane Street, Westhampnett, Chichester, West Sussex, PO18 0NS pdf icon PDF 370 KB

Proposal – Non material amendment to planning permission 19/032020/FUL to reduce number of brick piers, amend brick type and increase size of steel workpanels. 

Decision:

Permit.

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens presented the item to Members.

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

 

98.

SDNP/19/02132/HOUS - The Old Tanneries, Byworth Road, Byworth, Petworth, GU28 0HL pdf icon PDF 329 KB

Retrospective application for levelling of sloping area of walled amenity grass, increasing the height of retaining wall and creation of formal flower and herb beds.

Decision:

Permit.

Minutes:

Mr Price presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided in the Update Sheet.

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

 

99.

Local Validation List pdf icon PDF 249 KB

That the Committee agrees for consultation as a document to be used in validating planning applications.

Additional documents:

Decision:

Agree for Consultation.

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens presented the item to members and drew attention to the information provided in the Update Sheet.

 

Mrs Stevens responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to whether recent Government announcements would render the consultation document out of date, Mrs Stevens explained that this would not present an issue as changes which were due to be introduced were included within the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO).  The GDPO set out information which must be submitted with applications for approval or prior notification, and Mrs Stevens gave the example of converting an office building to residential accommodation, for which the Council were not permitted to require further/additional information.

 

With regards to the quality of applications for tree works, Mrs Stevens confirmed the list would not alter the information required and that separate regulations were in place, which currently required very limited details to be submitted.  Mr Whitty added that within the National Park, South Downs National Park Authority had their own Local List, which was recently updated following the adoption of their Local Plan.  With regards to future changes to the permitted development regulations, and the broad statements made recently by the Prime Minister, there may be implications forthcoming, but that was not a reason to not take the Local List forward, and currently the Council did not have one in place.

 

The Chairman advised that the document was for consultation purposes and therefore members were able to provide further comments via that process.

 

In a vote members agreed that document go out for consultation. 

 

Recommendation to agree Consultation Agreed.

 

100.

South Downs National Park,Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters Between 14 May 2020 and 16 June 2020 pdf icon PDF 142 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 agreed to note this item.

 

101.

Late Item: Covid-19 Signage Report pdf icon PDF 131 KB

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

Decision:

Response to Covid-19 – Signage to Support Public Safety and High Street Recovery: Noted.

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided in the Update Sheet.

 

Members agreed to note this item.

 

102.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration.

 

Top of page