Chichester District Council
Agenda, decisions and minutes

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Venue: virtually

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

Note: The Planning Committee Speaker Registration Form is unavailable for sections of 10 August 2020. Please instead email your request directly to shurr@chichester.gov.uk, thank you.  

Items
No. Item

104.

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

 

Apologies for absence had been received from Mr Sutton, and the Chairman wished him a speedy recovery.

105.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 110 KB

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

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of meeting held on 8 July be approved.

106.

Urgent Items

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

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

107.

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:

Rev Bowden declared a personal interest in respect of planning application CC/20/00970/FUL as a Member of Chichester City Council.

 

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SY/20/00605/FUL as a Member of Selsey Town Council.

 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications

LX/20/01481/FUL, and SI/20/00434/FUL as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications LX/20/01481/FUL, and SI/20/00434/FUL as a Member of West Sussex County Council, SY/20/00605/FUL as a Member of Selsey Town Council.

 

Mrs Sharp declared personal interest in respect of planning application CC/20/00970/FUL as a Member of Chichester City Council.

108.

LX/20/01481/FUL - Land South West Of Guildford Road, Loxwood, West Sussex pdf icon PDF 773 KB

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 50 dwelling to include 35 private unites and 15 affordable units, creation of proposed vehicular access, internal road and footpaths, car parking, sustainable drainage system, open space with association landscaping and amenity space (resubmission of planning application reference LX/19/01240/FUL).

Minutes:

Mr Bushell presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided on the update sheet.

 

The Committee received the following speakers:

 

Tony Colling – Parish Council

Peter Shahbenderian – Objector

Chris Brake – Agent

Gareth Evans – District Council (statement read)

 

Mr Bushell responded to Members’ comments and questions.  He explained that the overhead power lines within the site would be either buried or diverted, following a separate agreement between the developer and the electricity board as the statutory undertaker in this respect, and it was inappropriate to therefore include a condition in this regard.  In terms of decision making, Mr Bushell advised that the Parish’s Neighbourhood Plan was procedurally not sufficiently advanced to influence the decision of a planning Inspector were the application to be refused and subsequently pursued to appeal.  The west boundary would be well screened from the bridlepath, although there would be distant filtered views of the roofs tops similar to the existing adjacent development in Nursery Green.  Mr Bushell further clarified that there would be a five metre wide landscape buffer adjacent to the west and north site boundaries to visually soften the edge of the development with an access gate for maintenance. The land would be excluded from residents’ gardens and separately maintained by an estate management company, and officers were satisfied with the proposals in this regard.  Mr Bushell confirmed that the area to the north of the site was not part of the application site and outside of the applicant’s control. The proposals were not a subdivision of a site. A physical boundary in the form of a post and wire fence was in place and this would be reinforced by the proposed five metre landscape buffer. 

 

Mr Whitty advised that the current appeal against the previous refused application on the site was fundamentally based on the Council having a sufficient five year housing land supply. That situation had now changed and the Council could no longer demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The Council could not defend this position at appeal and the potential costs awarded against the Council in continuing to pursue an appeal under such circumstances were likely to be significant.  Mr Whitty also re-iterated that arguments around the prematurity of the proposals ahead of any revisions to the Neighbourhood plan would not carry weight with the planning Inspector.  With regards to foul water sewerage disposal, he considered this was robustly conditioned (condition 6) and there were on-going discussions -taking place with Southern Water.

 

Mr Bushell confirmed that that proposed informal path from the site to Guildford Road would be 3 metres wide and surfaced with hoggin, it had good visibility and West Sussex County Council as the highways authority, were satisfied with regards to safety.  Mr Bushell advised that the demolition of Hollyview House was an inevitable consequence of the development and in relation to the embedded carbon released from this action, it was necessary to consider this in light of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

109.

CC/20/00970/FUL - Prebendal School Playing Field, Avenue De Chartres, Chichester, PO19 1PX pdf icon PDF 944 KB

Replacement and relocation of Pavilion.

Decision:

Refuse.

Minutes:

Mr Mew presented the item to Members.

 

The Committee received the following speakers:

 

Alan Green – Objector (statement read)

Angus Eitel – Agent

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

 

Recommendation to Refuse.

 

Members took a five minute break

110.

SI/20/00434/FUL - The Fairways, Brimfast Lane, Sidlesham, PO20 7PZ pdf icon PDF 423 KB

Removal of existing building granted prior approval for change of use to C3 dwelling houses under 19/00757/PA3P and existing stable / storage building, and erection of a single storey new build dwelling and detached car port.

Decision:

Permit.

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens presented the item to Members.

 

Mrs Stevens responded to Members’ comments and questions.  Mrs Stevens confirmed that the fall-back position was from class P (commercial to residential), significant boundary treatments were in place and with regards to the adjacent golf course, there were no specific matters to consider within planning policy.  Mrs Stevens also confirmed that the caravans were in place whilst the current dwelling was being built and therefore no issues were associated with this, and further clarified that the new dwelling was not required to be constructed in the same location on the site as the existing building.

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

 

Recommendation to Defer for Section 106 and then Permit.

111.

SY/20/00605/FUL - Selsey Country Club, Golf Links Lane, Selsey, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 9DR pdf icon PDF 223 KB

Erection of Marquee between 1st April and the 30th September each year inclusive.

Decision:

Permit.

 

Minutes:

The Chairman confirmed that recommendation should read ‘Recommendation to Permit’, not ‘Recommendation to Refuse’.

 

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided on the update sheet.

 

The Committee received the following speaker:

 

Tim Johnson – District Council

 

Mr Mew responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to the planting of vegetation to the boundary, Mr Mew confirmed this would consist of 12 bushes on outer edge spaced at 1.5 metres apart and bushes on the inner edge spaced at 40 centimetres apart, in a staggered pattern.  Mr Whitty confirmed that it was not necessary for the vegetation to provide full screening.

 

Mr Wilding proposed that the density of the planting should be increased which, was seconded by Mrs Sharp.  In a vote Members did not agree the proposal.

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

 

Recommendation to Permit.

 

Members took a 30 minute lunch break.

112.

WW/20/00359/DOM - 3 Royce Close, West Wittering, PO20 8ND pdf icon PDF 875 KB

Two storey side extension and single storey extensions to front and rear.

Decision:

Permit.

 

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens presented the item to Members.

 

The Committee received the following speakers:

 

Nicolette Pike – Parish Council

Brian Stovey– Objector

Claire Ralf - Objector

Jan Gillon – Objector

Rachel Strange - Supporter

Paul White – Agent

 

Mrs Stevens responded to Members’ comments and questions.  Mrs Stevens advised that the Village Design Statement required that gaps between buildings should be maintained, and on balance officers considered that the gap between the proposed extension and the neighbouring property was acceptable.  The driveway of the house was also considered to have sufficient space for parking.  With regards to the windows, the bathroom positioned at the end of the extension was at a high level and would not overlook the neighbouring property.  The installation of a ‘Juliet’ balcony would not require planning permission, but in order for the flat roof to be used as a balcony or roof terrace, building regulations would require a balustrade was fitted, and Mrs Stevens added that a condition could be included stating that planning permission would be required if the applicant wished to use this area.  The building was set back from the road with Tree Protection Order protected trees, and therefore the projection of the building to the front was not considered to present an issue.  Mrs Stevens also confirmed a construction management plan could be recommended which would include consideration with regards to litter, noise and dust. 

 

Mrs Johnson left the meeting and did not return.

 

Mr Barrett proposed a site visit should take place and Mr Whitty advised that this could be organised if required by the Committee, but he considered that a balanced recommendation had been provided by officers.  The Chairman sought a seconder for the proposal, but none was forthcoming. 

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation with an additional condition requiring a construction management plan.

 

Recommendation to Permit.  

113.

Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions pdf icon PDF 165 KB

The Planning Committee is asked to consider the schedule for the period up 30 June 2020 which updates the position with regards to planning enforcement matters.

Minutes:

Mrs Archer explained that the increase in reports was potentially due to more residents spending time at home during the Covid-19 pandemic, and viewing and reporting issues. 

 

Mrs Archer responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to the disproportionate number of cases in the South Downs National Park Authority planning area, Mrs Archer explained that a statistical analysis had not been undertaken to date, but the data could be reviewed and further information provided at a future Committee.  Mrs Archer suggested that a potential explanation could be that people in urban areas were more tolerant, and those rural locations were more likely to be aware of issues, and report them. 

 

With regards to fences and gateways adjacent to the highway, Mrs Archer confirmed that she was not aware of an increase and that the Council relied upon its own judgement, and consultation with the highways authority would only be sought, should an incursion on to the highway have taken place.

 

Mrs Archer also confirmed the information relating to the Land North West of Premier Business Park, Birdham Road development, did not include all current matters.  Four plots were outside the authority’s enforcement area. One plot did not relate to Gypsy and Travellers, and an enforcement notice had been served and was now at prosecution stage.  Three other plots were subject to appeals and information was now awaited from the Planning Inspectorate as to how those appeals would be heard.  Mrs Archer also added that there was a continuing lack of compliance regarding Decoy Farm and therefore further action would be taken which may involve a prosecution, subject to consultation with the legal team.

 

Regarding a fence replacing an ancient wall, Mrs Archer confirmed there was no necessity to wait to take enforcement action.  In response the on-going use of Unit 2, Land North of Cemetery Lane, Woodmancote for HGV vehicles, Mrs Archer also confirmed she would review the case.

 

With regards to the number of times an applicant can appeal, Mrs Archer advised it was necessary to demonstrate intent to resolve the issues of the previous application in a further appeal.

 

Members agreed to note this item.

114.

Chichester District Council, Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters Between 17 June 2020 and 21 July 2020 pdf icon PDF 160 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 Members attention to the information in the update sheet and the High Court action in respect of the land rear of Premier Motor Homes, Main Road, Birdham.  Mrs Archer explained an Injunction Order had been issued requiring removal of caravans and restoration of the land to agricultural use.  The occupants could challenge this order but it would require a robust case, and that could also result in contempt of court.  Mrs Archer further explained that direct action was a lengthy process, and it was hoped there would be compliance with the order before further actions were considered.

 

Members agreed to note this item.

115.

South Downs National Park, Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters Between 17 June 2020 and 21 July 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:

Members agreed to note this item.

116.

Consideration of any late items as follows:

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the Chair 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.

117.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration.

Minutes:

There were no part two items.

 

Top of page