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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.

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

He informed the Committee that Agenda Item 8 - CC/22/03201/LBC, had been withdrawn from the agenda and would be considered at a future Planning Committee.

Apologies were received from Cllrs Briscoe, Burkhart and D Johnson.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 26 April 2023.

Cllr Sharp asked that the condition regarding the ‘Havenstoke pre agreed calendar of events’ clearly states that it is to be reviewed on a regular basis between the Chichester District Council and CCDT (page 4, third paragraph down). Officers noted the comments.

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 26 April were agreed as a true and accurate record.

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 15(b).

There were no urgent items.

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.

Cllr Johnson declared a predetermination in the following items;

-       Agenda Item 9 – SB/22/00406/FUL

-       Agenda Item 13 – Planning Appeal APP/L3815/W/23/3318548

Cllr Johnson explained that he had voted against both applications (in his capacity as a Parish Councillor) when they were considered by Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council.

Cllr Quail declared a predetermination in the following items;

-       Agenda Item 5 – CC/22/011/78/DOM

-       Agenda Item 6 – CC/22/01501/REM

-       Agenda Item 7 – CC/22/02298/FUL

Cllr Quail explained that she had voted against these applications (in her capacity as a City Councillor) when they were considered by Chichester City Council.

Remodelling and extension to existing bungalow to form 4 no. bedroom bungalow with 1 no. bedroom annexe and to relocate the existing access.

Permit

Having declared a predetermination Cllr Quail withdrew from the meeting.

Mr Thomas introduced the report. He drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which provided a point of clarification regarding the proposed annexe accommodation and an additional condition to secure details for external lighting.

Mr Thomas outlined the application proposal and highlighted the site location. He explained that the site was located within the Summersdale area to the north of the Chichester settlement boundary and Chichester conservation area.

Mr Thomas highlighted the site access onto Highland Road and its proximity to neighbouring dwellings.

He showed the proposed layout and elevations, explaining that the lower ‘hipped’ part of the building would contain the proposed annexe.

Mr Thomas explained there would be an increase of 90cm in the ridge height, meaning the main ridge height in the proposed dwelling would increase from 5.7m to 6.6m. Whilst the development would be slightly taller than the neighbouring bungalow, officers felt this was acceptable and would not be harmful to the area.

Representations were received from;

Professor Nick French – Objector

Mr John Ellis – Objector

Mr Kenneth Knight – Objector

Mrs Kerry Simmons – Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to the question of how many original walls would be visible following completion of the development; Mr Thomas outlined the existing walls which would be retained as part of the development. With regards to the finished details these would be confirmed as part of Condition 3.

In response to concerns regarding the proposed height of the development; Mr Thomas showed the Committee a photograph of the street scene which demonstrated the variations in height of neighbouring dwellings.

With regards to increase in foul sewage; Miss Smith advised the Committee that officers had considered drainage impacts as part of the application process, they had raised no concern.

Miss Smith advised the Committee that there could not be an ‘in principle’ objection to the size of a house, the number of people that may live in a house is not a matter relevant for consideration.

With regards to the removal of future permitted development rights; Miss Smith agreed that it would not be unreasonable to remove permitted development rights for any future alterations to the roof to ensure it would not become overbearing on neighbouring property. However, it would not be reasonable, nor meet the test to remove all future development.

Mr Thomas informed the Committee that the number of third-party objections were summarised in paragraph 6.4 of the report.

Miss Smith confirmed that officers had considered all appropriate design guidance and were confident that what was proposed was acceptable according to policy and material considerations.

Responding to concerns that the annexe may be used as separate accommodation in the future; Mr Thomas drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 9 (page 22) which prevented the annexe from being used as anything other than ancillary accommodation.

To prevent a second access to the development; Miss Smith agreed that an extra line could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Application for the approval of Reserved Matters for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale following Outline Planning Permission 14/01018/OUT - erection of class C2 assisted living/extra care accommodation with communal facilities and car parking.

Permit

Having declared a predetermination Cllr Quail withdrew from the meeting.

Mrs Prichard introduced the report. She drew attention to the agenda update sheet which set out an additional comment from West Sussex County Council, following the receipt of additional information.

Mrs Prichard outlined the site location, which was within the Graylingwell development and partially within the Graylingwell Conservation Area and Historic Park and Garden.

The Committee were shown the approved Graylingwell Masterplan, which had received outline planning permission in March 2018. As part of the outline application permission had been given for a C2 care home, permission was now being sought for the reserved matters for appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale.

The C2 development would comprise 61 assisted living/extra care accommodation apartments, along with communal facilities and car parking.

Mrs Prichard drew attention to the proposed parking arrangements, she confirmed this had been reviewed by officers at West Sussex County Council who agreed the provision was acceptable. There would be a total of 42 spaces, including 3 disabled bays, the spaces would not be sold with the accommodation but be operated through a permit scheme.

The site was adjacent to WSCC parking zone S, Mrs Prichard informed the Committee that there was a maximum of 343 permits available in this zone, 253 had been issued leaving a headroom of 90 permits not issued.

Mrs Prichard drew attention to the where the sub station would be located, she explained that this would be installed by a statutory provider under permitted development rights. In addition, the applicant had agreed to hide the substation within brick housing to enhance its appearance, this did require permission and formed part of the application.

The Committee were shown a number of plans detailing the proposed elevations, floor plans and landscaping.

Mrs Prichard informed the Committee of a number of conditions which the applicant would need to comply in order to satisfy the outline planning permission.

Representations were received from;

Mr Gian Bendinelli – Agent

Cllr Jonathan Brown – CDC Ward Member

Officers responded to questions and comments as follows;

Responding to concerns regarding parking provision; Mrs Prichard assured the Committee that the applicant had undertaken extensive research to ensure adequate provision was made. Mr Townsend, WSCC Highways, explained the evidence had been reviewed and WSCC were satisfied with the level of parking proposed.

On the matter of access from the site to Keepers Green; Mrs Prichard confirmed that there was no direct access from Keepers Green to the site. Ms Bell, agreed that officers would support the inclusion of a condition for the provision of pedestrian access from the site onto Keepers Green, however, a caveat would need to be included stating ‘unless otherwise agreed in writing’;  in case there was a reason not yet known, for example security concerns, that would prevent the applicant from providing such access.

On the matter of surface water drainage: Mrs Prichard explained this was addressed under Condition 17 of the outline planning permission. In addition, Condition 3 had been  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of 4 no. dwellings and associated works including new access, garages and lean to extension to plot 2 (amendments to schemes LA Ref: CC/20/01897/FUL and CC/22/00017/FUL).

Defer for S106 then permit

Having declared a predetermination Cllr Quail left the meeting.

Mr Mew introduced the report. He drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an additional officer comment; an additional third-party objection and an amendment to Condition 6 (page 70).

Mr Mew outlined the site location which was within the Chichester Settlement boundary. He explained that there had been two previous planning permissions on the site and works for these permissions had commenced. He explained that the planning permissions were extant and were a material consideration.

Mr Mew detailed the previous permissions which had been granted on site. He highlighted the proposed changes as sought in the application, including a change in the boundary line at the rear of the building to reflect a change in ownership; the addition of a single storey element to plot 2; a new access for plot 2 (the existing access would continue to serve plots 1,3 & 4) and; a single storey garage to serve plot 1.

Mr Mew highlighted the revisions to the proposed landscaping scheme, which would provide enhanced boundary screening between properties.

The Committee were shown the proposed elevations and layouts of the various amendments.

Mr Mew highlighted the visibility splay of the new access and confirmed WSCC highways had made no objection to the application.

Mr Mew advised the Committee that it was officer opinion that the application was not in conflict with planning policy.

Representations were received from;

Mr James Vaux – Objector

Dr Simone Ivatts – Objector

Mr Nick Sutherland – Objector (statement read by Fiona Baker)

Mrs Kerry Simmons – Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns raised regarding the development; Miss Smith reminded the Committee that the principal of development on the site was already established. The application related only to plots 1 and 2 on the site and the boundary hedging.

With regards to the landscaping along the boundary; Miss Smith advised that Condition 6 could be amended to include the planting of native species; that areas of planting are done to offer privacy all year around; planting is undertaken in a timely manner and future management is addressed.

On the matter of occupancy; Miss Smith was not aware any properties on site were occupied. She would follow this up outside the meeting, however, she advised the Committee this was not a material consideration.

Responding to concerns raised about the appearance of the development; Mr Mew acknowledged comments made, but highlighted that the development was in keeping with the character of the area and was not in breach of policy.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 then permit.

Resolved; Defer for S106 then permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report and the amendment to condition 6 as set out in the Agenda Update sheet. 

Replacement of broken/missing glass within leaded light windows; proposed DOFF cleaning technique for external stonework; replacement of external stonework and partial replacement of timber floor.

Withdrawn from agenda – will be considered at a future Planning Committee

As announced by the Chairman the item was withdrawn and would be heard at a future Planning Committee.

Change of use of land for 2 no. travelling showmen plots

Defer for S106 then permit

Cllr Quail re-joined the Committee.

As Cllr Johnson had declared a predetermination on Agenda Item 13 and withdrew from the room. Cllr Cross as Vice Chair chaired the item in his absence.

Mr Thomas introduced the report. He drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an additional comment from Southbourne Parish Council.

Mr Thomas highlighted the site location, drawing the Committee’s attention to the Public Rights of Way which ran adjacent to the site. He showed the Committee the proposed site layout and access.

Mr Thomas shared a number of images taken from the site, he highlighted where the proposed screening would be planted, the existing boundary planting and the area of land which would be planted with trees to provide nitrate mitigation.

Before the Committee heard the objector representations Ms Golding explained that the Committee should apply less weight to the statements, they would hear from the three objectors as they had chosen to remain anonymous. 

Representations were received from;

Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council – Statement read by Fiona Baker

Cllr Amanda Tait – Southbourne Parish Council

Objector 1 – Statement read by Fiona Baker

Objector 2 – Statement read by Fiona Baker

Objector 3 – Statement read by Fiona Baker

Mr Joe Cunane – Agent

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Thomas noted the error on page of the report which referred to Hunston Village Shop instead of Hambrook.

On the matter of the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan; Miss Smith advised the Committee that the Plan carried some weight but not significant weight as it was not developed enough. Similarly, the council’s emerging Local Plan did carry some weight but not significant.

With regards to potential impact on the wildlife corridor; Miss Smith drew attention to the report which detailed the full consideration given to the likely impact of the development on the wildlife corridor. She explained that in officer opinion there would be additional benefit from the proposed planting schemes. The mitigation measures were secured by condition.

Mr Thomas clarified the sites position in proximity to the wildlife corridor proposed in the emerging Local Plan and the wildlife corridor in the developing Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan.

On the matter of lighting; Miss Smith drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 18 (page 113) which addressed the issue of external lighting and its future management.

Miss Smith advised the Committee that officers had proposed a comprehensive suite of Conditions to address sensitive issues such as landscaping and ecology.

Regarding the sustainability of the site; Mr Thomas advised that the site was in a very sustainable location, it was adjacent to gypsy and traveller sites and within the settlement boundary of Chidham & Hambrook. The distance to the shop was not significant. In addition; Miss Smith advised the Committee that if they felt the site was not suitable, they would have to qualify why the site was not appropriate.

Mrs Stevens reminded the Committee that there was an unmet need, and this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9.

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

Cllr Johnson returned to the meeting and resumed the role of Chairman.

Mrs Stevens introduced the item.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to note the item.

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

Mrs Stevens introduced the item.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to note the item.

The Planning Committee is asked to consider the quarterly schedule updating the position with regards to planning enforcement matters.

Mr George introduced the report. He informed the Committee that the number of cases on hand had gone down from 418 at the last meeting to 394, and the enforcement team continued to work hard to reduce the backlog of cases.

A Conditions Compliant officer had recently been appointed, part of the role would be to monitor larger developments and ensure they were being built in accordance with approved conditions.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to note the report.

*Members took a 30-minute break.

The Planning Committee are asked to consider the attached report and support the proposed recommendations;

That the Planning Committee:

i)  notes the information within the report, and

ii)to contest appeal APP/L3815/W/23/3318548, only in respect of:

·        Lack of financial contribution of the scale envisaged in the draft Policy T1 of the Local Plan 2021-2039: Proposed Submission to enable the Council to secure the identified A27 highway improvements

·        Lack of infrastructure provision (affordable housing, nitrate mitigation land, recreation disturbance mitigation, public open space, allotments and community orchard, ecological buffer to the Ham Brook, public right of way contribution and travel plan monitoring) until a S106 Legal Agreement is agreed

·        Impact upon Chichester Harbour and Solent Maritime SPAs from discharge of nitrates unless the LPA, in consultation with Natural England, is satisfied that the development would be nutrient neutral

The Planning Committee; agreed the recommendations as set out in Agenda Update sheet, plus the inclusion of additional conditions as requested.

As Cllr Johnson had declared a predetermination on Agenda Item 13 and withdrew from the room. Cllr Cross as Vice Chair chaired the item in his absence.

Miss Thatcher introduced the report. She drew attention to the agenda update sheet which included an updated recommendation; updated officer comments on nitrates, sustainability, and viability, and; a correction to paragraph 4.12.

Miss Thatcher outlined the original application which had been submitted; however, before officers were able to provide a formal recommendation to the Planning Committee, the applicant had chosen to appeal against non-determination. She explained the purpose of the report was to seek the view of the Planning Committee and understand how the application might have been determined had they considered it.

Miss Thatcher outlined the site location. The site was located within the Parish of Southbourne, with part of the site falling within the settlement boundary of Nutbourne West. Miss Thatcher reminded the Committee that Southbourne was classed as settlement hub within the Chichester Local Plan.

Miss Thatcher highlighted the sites proximity to recent development sites including Priory Orchard and Meadow View and local features close to the site including; a public right of way, the Ham Brook and the proposed wildlife corridor.

The Committee were shown a series of photos of the site.

Miss Thatcher showed an illustrative site plan. She explained the number of proposed dwellings had reduced from 112 to 103 and drew attention to some of the associated development including a children’s nursery, an ecological buffer, the proposed SuDs infrastructure and access to the site.

Miss Thatcher confirmed that there was enough headroom capacity at the Thornham wastewater treatment centre to facilitate the development.

Miss Thatcher informed the Committee of the proposed nitrate mitigation scheme, which officers now considered would provide nitrate neutrality, therefore the nitrate element had been removed from report recommendation.

Miss Thatcher explained that the appeal proposal had been tested against the 13 criteria in IPS and when applying the tilted balance officers considered the site to be a sustainable location for development.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Amanda Tait – Southbourne Parish Council

Ms Ceri Stunt – Objector

Mr Patrick Barry – Agent

Cllr Oona Hickson – CDC Member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows

On the matter of the Wildlife Corridor; Mr Day explained how the corridor was proposed as part of the Local Plan process, using the Ham Brook as the linking habitat between the SNDP and the Chichester Harbour AONB. The width of the wildlife corridors was not uniform but site specific. The wildlife corridors formed part of the emerging Local Plan and as such carry little weight.

With regards to the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan; Miss Bell explained that the Chichester Local Plan was out of date. In addition, Chichester do not have a Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS), therefore the application must be determined having regard to the tilted balance.

On the matter of prematurity; Ms Bell explained that neither the developing Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan or the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13.

The Planning Committee are asked to consider the attached report and make the proposed recommendation;

That the Planning Committee consider and agree the attached responses to the consultation questions for submission in response to the government consultation on ‘Introduction of a use class for short term lets and associated permitted development rights’.

The Planning Committee agreed the report recommendation, including agreed amendments.

Cllr Johnson re-joined the meeting and continued as Chairman.

Mrs Stevens introduced the report.

Mrs Stevens responded to questions and comments as follows;

Q11. Mrs Stevens agreed to amend the response to acknowledge economic benefit of allowing flexibility for short term lets, but caveat how difficult it would be to monitor.

Q12. Mrs Stevens agreed to change the answer to 90 days.

Mrs Stevens invited members of the Committee to forward any further comments/amendment to her by 5 June 2023. These would be considered and discussed with the Chairman before the final response was submitted.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the recommendation including the agreed amendments to questions 12 and 18.

Resolved; that the Planning Committee have considered and agreed the attached responses, including amendments to questions 12 and 18, to the consultation questions for submission in response to the government consultation on ‘introduction of a use class for short term lets and associated permitted development rights’

*Cllr Todhunter re-joined the meeting at the start of item 14.

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

There were no late items.

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no Part 2 items.