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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

Apologies were received from Cllr’s D. Johnson and Sharp

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 8 November 2023 and; the meeting of the Planning Committee on 22 November 2023 (TO FOLLOW)

Following a vote, the minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 8 November 2023 were agreed as a true and accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday 22 November 2023 will be agreed at the meeting on Wednesday 15 January 2024.

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 14(b)

The Chairman announced that he had agreed the following item would be considered as a late item at Agenda Item 14. He explained the reason for this was because the consultation date closed on 24 December 2023 which was before the next Committee.

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 S Johnson declared a predetermination in Agenda Item 6 – SB/21/01910/OUT as he had already voted on the application as a Parish Councillor when Chidham and Hambrook had considered the item.

Cllr S Johnson declared a personal interest in;

-       Agenda Item 5 - SB/22/01903/OUT – as the Chichester District Council (CDC) appointed member to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy

-       Agenda Item 9 – BO/22/02446/FUL – as the CDC appointed member to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy

-       Agenda Item 10 – AP/22/03196/FUL – as the CDC appointed member to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the development of 40 residential dwellings (Use Class C3), with associated vehicular access, parking and open space.

Defer for S106 then permit.

Miss Bell introduced the report. She drew attention to the additional Agenda Update Sheet which included an update from Department for Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs stating that Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) would know be known as National Landscapes (this update applied to all agenda items within the Chichester Harbour National Landscape).

The Agenda Update sheet also included an update to Agenda Item 6; however, Miss Bell informed the Committee that this update also applied to Agenda Item 5.

Miss Bell gave a verbal update to recommend an additional condition to secure hedgerow planting which would replace and strengthen the hedgerow that would be removed to create the access to the site.

Miss Bell outlined the site location, which was located within the Southbourne settlement boundary. She highlighted development sites within proximity including the North of Cooks Lane site which would deliver 194 housing units and drew attention to the boundary of the Chichester Harbour National Landscape.

Miss Bell informed the Committee that the development would deliver 12 affordable housing units equating to 30%. The breakdown of housing mix was set out in the report on page 26.

Miss Bell detailed the proposed access arrangements. the site would be accessed via a new access from Cooks Lane. She referred to the proposed condition (provided as a verbal update) which would strengthen and secure the existing hedgerow.

The development would deliver a new footpath creating a continuous link from Cooks Lane to Stein Road.

Miss Bell explained the weight of the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan and, following it modification how it impacted on the proposed development. She informed the Committee that officers had sought legal advice to further understand the implications and ascertain whether the tilted balance in favour of sustainable was still engaged. Miss Bell confirmed that the tilted balance is engaged.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Jonathan Brown - Objector

Mrs Lynn Hicks – Objector

Ms Rebecca Fenn-Tripp – On Applicant’s Behalf

Cllr Oona Hickson – CDC Member (statement read by Cllr Tracie Bangert)

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns regarding the width of Cooks Lane; Mr Shaw acknowledged concerns raised. However, he assured the Committee that the width of the road (including to the west of the access) had been reviewed as part of the highway assessment and was adequate. He explained that as part of the transport assessment submitted by the applicant trip rates and routes had been considered, 67% were forecast to turn west and 33% east, the additional number of trips would not cause an unacceptable highway impact.

On the matter of the pumping station located near the proposed access; Miss Bell assured the Committee that it would not be impacted by the development.

Miss Bell clarified what a S278 agreement was.

Regarding flood risk; Miss Bell informed the Committee that WSCC as the Local Lead Flood Authority had reviewed the application, and recommended Condition 9 (page 50) be included as part of the permission to ensure any flood risk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 128.

Outline planning permission with all matters reserved (except for access) for the demolition of all existing buildings and structures on site and the erection of 63 no. dwellings including 3 no. custom/self-build plots, parking, landscaping and associated works.

Refuse, against officer recommendation

Having declared a predetermination Cllr S Johnson withdrew from the meeting.

Miss Bell introduced the report. She drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; an additional consultation comment regarding the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan and Planning Policy.

Miss Bell reminded the Committee that the application had been deferred by the Planning Committee at their meeting on 4 October 2023 to allow for the publication of the Examiner’s report for the Southbourne Modified Neighbourhood Plan. She explained the report had now been published and Cabinet at their meeting on 5 December had agreed it could now move to referendum.

Miss Bell informed the Committee that any new information which had come forward since the last Committee was printed in bold text throughout the report.

Miss Bell highlighted the site location and the proximity of other sites which had recently been allowed at appeal.

The Committee were shown the proposed parameter plan and illustrative layout, which would be secured through condition and legal agreement. Miss Bell drew attention to the dark corridor and ecological enhancements; the open play area and proposed SUDS basin.

Miss Bell informed the Committee the development was expected to deliver a 44% net gain in biodiversity.

Miss Bell explained that the weight which could be afforded to the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan, in particular policy SB13 Green infrastructure. However, as the Council could not demonstrate a 5YHLS the tilted balance was engaged in favour of development.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Amanda Tait (statement read by Cllr Tracie Bangert) – Southbourne Parish Council

Cllr Jane Towers – Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council

Cllr Andrew Kerry-Beddell – WSCC Member

Mr Andrew Sargent – Objector

Mr Paul Metcalfe – Objector

Cllr Jonathan Brown – Objector

Ms Faye Goodson – Applicant

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Before opening the debate, the Chairman reminded the Committee that the application had been before the Committee four times and urged them to make a decision.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the consideration of protected species; Mr Day informed the Committee that the biodiversity net gain did not consider any protected species that may be on site.

Mr Day explained how the biodiversity net gain was calculated and why it was so high.

Miss Bell clarified that the pair of proposed semi-detached dwellings located within the Chidham and Hambrook Parish boundary would replace the single dwelling already in situ.

Regarding the accessibility from the site to services; Mr Shaw, acknowledge that most journeys would be car based, however, as had been tested at recent appeals the site was sustainable. In addition, Miss Bell informed the Committee that the distances to services were within the accepted range set out in the Chidham & Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan.

Responding to concerns of setting precedent by allowing development within the wildlife corridor: Mrs Stevens assured the Committee that no precedent would be set as each application is considered on its own merits.

On the matter of increasing the buffer zone between the development and the chalk  ...  view the full minutes text for item 129.

2 no. additional doors, installation of defibrillator and water fountain to south east elevation with associated alterations and repairs.

Permit

Mr Thomas introduced the report.

Mr Thomas outlined the site location and highlighted the listed building close to the site.

The Committee were shown the proposed floorplan and elevations. Mr Thomas highlighted the proposed changes and drew attention to where the defibrillator and water fountain would be located.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the height of the hedge outside, acknowledged the safety concerns of the Committee and agreed to pass this concern onto the Parks team who would be able to look at reducing and maintaining its height.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation permit.

Resolved; permit, subject to the proposed conditions and informatives.

Refurbishment of public conveniences including enlargement of disabled WC and 1 no. additional door to south east elevation.

Permit

Mr Thomas introduced the report.

Mr Thomas outlined the site location.

The Committee were shown the proposed floorplan and elevations. Mr Thomas explained the facility would provide a larger Disabled facility and larger cleaning cupboard.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the provision of temporary toilet facilities during the building works; Miss Smith explained this did not form part of the decision-making process but would pass the request on.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation permit.

Resolved; permit, subject to the proposed conditions and informatives.

*Members took a 45-minute break at the conclusion of this item

*Cllr Brookes-Harmer left the meeting at the conclusion of this item

Small agricultural barn.

Defer for site visit

Mr Thomas introduced the report. He provided a verbal update on the additional supporting documentation provided by the applicants and drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included additional representation from Chichester Harbour Conservancy; two additional third-party objection and additional comments from applicant/agent.

Mr Thomas outlined the site location which was within the Parish of Bosham and the Chichester Harbour National Landscape.

The Committee were shown the proposed elevations and floor plan, which included a timber sliding door.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Penny Plant – Bosham Parish Council

Dr Richard Austin – Chichester Harbour Conservancy - Objector

Mr Tavis Cannell – Objector

Mr Alex Macdonald - Objector

Mr Herman Spruit – Supporter

Mr John Wells – Applicant

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Before opening the discussion, the Chairman invited Mr Thomas to explain why the application was not allowed through Permitted Development. Mr Thomas explained the barn did not qualify for Permitted Development as as it would have been necessary to attach a condition requiring a construction method statement to ensure that there would be no negative impact caused during construction, and there is no facility to apply conditions to a Prior Approval application.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the use of other barns in the applicant’s ownership; Mr Thomas explained these were occupied in long term tenancy agreements. He confirmed there were some unauthorised structures on the farm, and these were being investigated by the Enforcement Team.

Mr Thomas clarified the applicants land which amounted to around 100ha in total, including an ‘in-land’ block of 89ha and a ‘foreshore’ block of 26ha.

Regarding the future use of the building; Mr Thomas assured the Committee that any future change of use would require a separate planning application.

Having listened to the discussion Cllr Bates proposed the application be deferred for a site visit.

Cllr Cross seconded the proposal.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the recommendation by Cllr Bates to defer for a site visit.

Resolved; defer for a site visit to view the site in its context.

Demolition and replacement dwelling and garage with associated landscaping.

Permit

Miss Haigh introduced the report. She outlined the application site which was located within the Chichester Harbour National Landscape.

Miss Haigh explained the application was for a replacement dwelling, the current dwelling was deemed to be a non-designated heritage asset.

The Committee were shown the proposed layout and elevations. Miss Haigh informed the Committee that the proposal was considered to be of high design and provided a building that would be better suited to the conservation area and Chichester Harbour National Landscape.

A replacement garage would also be delivered as part of the application, the Committee were shown the proposed elevations and layout.

Representations were received from;

Mrs O’Sullivan – Applicant

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Officers acknowledged concern that a Temple Moore designed building would be demolished, but for the reasons set out within the report, on balance, the loss of the building was outweighed by the enhancement that would result from the proposed development.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to permit.

Resolved; permit, subject to the proposed conditions and informatives.

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

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.

The Committee agreed to note the item.

The Planning Committee are asked to consider the report and make the proposed recommendation set out in the report

Support officer recommendation  

Mr Bushell introduced the report and drew the Committee’s attention to Section 3 which set out the background to the application and why officers were seeking permission to contest the appeal.

Mr Bushell outlined the site location which was located within the Shopwhyke Lakes site. He highlighted the proximity of the site to the ‘Longacre House’ development, the Cala homes development site, and a nursing home.

Mr Bushell explained that the proposed development of 87 units would be in addition to the 585 dwellings which were permitted across the Shopwhyke Lake site.

The Committee were shown the proposed site layout and elevations which included 87 housing units, 85 car parking spaces, electric vehicle charging points and 87 cycle bays. Access to the site was already established via Longacre Way.

Mr Bushell highlighted the proposed landscaping, however, there was no onsite play space provided as development, the developer was relying on this provision being provided elsewhere.

Mr Bushell drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included a further consultee comment from financial viability consultants Dixon Searle Partnership; and amendments to reasons 1 and 2 for contesting the appeal following the advice from Dixon Searle.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Simon Oakley – WSCC Member

Mr Benjamin Hunt – Objector

Mr Simon Ible – Applicant

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns regarding the proposed parking provision; Mr Bushell drew attention to paragraph 10.6 of the report which detailed the parking arrangements within the surrounding area and the consideration given to the amenity of future occupiers. There were provisions already in place to try and prevent ‘fly parking’ including double yellow lines, therefore it would be hard to contest the appeal on the grounds of highway safety or amenity. In addition, Mr Shaw explained the applicant had undertaken a bespoke assessment (at the request of WSCC) to better understand parking future parking requirements from the development. Through the forecasting the worst case scenario was a parking requirement for 90 vehicles which would result in an overspill of five vehicles at peak times.

Regarding affordable housing; Mr Bushell explained that following the viability testing undertaken by Dixon Searle, it would be difficult to substantiate defending an appeal on the grounds on no affordable housing provision as the profit level for the development is below what would normally be expected from a development of this scale and fall below the requirement for affordable housing delivery.              

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the amended report recommendation.

Resolved; That the Planning Committee:

i)               Notes the information within the report.

ii)             Agrees to contest the appeal APP/L3815/W/23/3332866, in respect of the following matters;

a.    Design, mass, bulk layout, appearance and over development of the proposed built form relative to its immediate and wider site context at Shopwhyke Lakes and the provision of insufficient open space and no equipped play space as required by the Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD.

b.    Lack of infrastructure provision secured through  ...  view the full minutes text for item 136.

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

Support officer recommendation.

As announced by the Chairman’ the following item was considered, Public Consultation: Climate Change and Historic Building Adaptation Historic England Advice Note.

Mr Broadway introduced the report. He explained the new guidance note had been produced to address the issue of Climate Change and Historic Building Adaptation and provide advice to local planning authorities.

Mr Broadway highlighted the more flexible approach to the installation of double glazing within historic buildings.

Mr Broadway informed the Committee that Cllr Cross had contacted officers ahead of the meeting to propose the following sentence be included within the response to section 83, point 4, which officers were happy to accept;

‘The installation of slim-profile glazing will require listed building consent, unless they are replacing panes in modern windows.

In modern extensions to listed buildings (post 2000 for example), there is no requirement to have listed building consent for the replacing of slim-profile glazing panes.’

Regarding the installation of triple glazing, Mr Broadway explained that this could be considered if it was appropriate for the building in question.

With regards to the installation of UPVC windows, Mr Broadway confirmed that this was not looked upon favourably for a number of reasons; it had only a short life span with a high carbon cost. However, each application would be considered on its own merit.

Following at vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation set out at 2.1 of the report.

Resolved; The Planning Committee note the contents of the Public Consultation; Climate Change and Historic Building Adaptation Historic England Advance Note, and to comment on and endorse the proposed response as amended to the consultation (Appendix 1)

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.