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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The Chairman informed those present that Agenda Item 12 had been withdrawn as the applicant - National Highways had withdrawn their application.

Apologies were received from Cllr Sharp.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 22 November 2023 and 6 December 2023 (to follow).

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 November 2023 and 6 December 2023 would be agreed at the next meeting on 7 February.

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 17 (b).

The Chairman announced that the response to the public consultation on Street Vote Development Orders would be considered as a late item at agenda item 17(b). The reason for the item being allowed was due to the consultation closing on 2 February 2024 which was before the next Planning 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 Quail declared a predetermination in Agenda item’s 5, 6 and 7 as she had already expressed opinions on the applications when they were considered by Chichester City Council.

Outline planning application with all matters except Access reserved for the second phase of development of the West of Chichester Strategic Development Location (SDL) for up to 850 homes and employment land with vehicular, pedestrian and cycle access from Westgate and via phase 1, extensions to approved phase 1 community facility and primary school, informal and formal open space (including northern Country Park), playing pitches and associated landscaping, utilities and drainage infrastructure. Closure of Clay Lane vehicular access.

To assist members with their consideration of the application a copy of the submitted site framework parameter plan has been provided as a separate appendix to the agenda.

Defer for S106 then permit.

Having declared a predetermination in this item Cllr Quail withdrew from the meeting.

Mr Harris introduced the report. He clarified the application proposals and reminded the Committee that the application was an outline application with all matters reserved expect for access. As part of the application approval was also sought for a number of Parameter plans which any subsequent REM application would need to be compliant with.

Mr Harris went through the proposed parameter plans which included; the Site Framework; the Street Hierarchy (and how it linked into site 1); Storey Heights; Pedestrian/Cycle routes; Density; Play Space, Public Open Space, Drainage and Cathedral Views.

Mr Harris confirmed that the Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed that the approach to surface water drainage was satisfactory and that any residual surface water from the phase 2 development parcels would be accommodated in the attenuation ponds located in the Southern Country Park.

Mr Harris explained how the street orientation had been designed to maintain views of Chichester Cathedral.

Mr Harris showed the Committee a number of illustrative plans which had been submitted including the site masterplan. He explained the development would deliver a biodiversity net gain and would satisfactorily mitigate impacts on The Chichester Harbour SPA/SAC.

Mr Harris detailed the proposed access arrangements and the development of the new Southern Access Road (SAR). He showed how it would link into the Phase 1 development, highlighting where new pedestrian crossings would be installed; the proposed amendments to the Centurion Way and the new traffic arrangements for Bishop Luffa School including a new footpath to the drop off and pick up point. The works would be completed prior to the occupation of the 151^st dwelling.

Mr Harris concluded the site offered a sustainable mixed-use development which would enhance the city and strengthen the council’s five-year housing land supply.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Stuart Loxton – Chichester City Council

Mr Richard Plowman – Objector

Mr Mark Record – Objector

Mr Ian Sumnall – Objector

Mr Nick Billington – Agent

Cllr Clare Apel – CDC Member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the traffic data; Mr Shaw, West Sussex County Council (WSCC) Highways Manager, assured the Committee the traffic data used was compliant and in accordance with national guidelines. He detailed the counts that had been undertaken as part of the application process, explaining data from 2014 had been used to compare with results from 2019. In addition, the applicant had undertaken a further survey in 2022 and verified the modelling based on the results. Mr Shaw assured the Committee the proposed highway arrangements were based on a solid set of data and offered the most robust approach.

Responding to concerns regarding the TRICs system used to forecast trips; Mr Shaw explained TRICS was the recognised system used to forecast the number of additional trips generated because of new development. Research had shown that it was very accurate in its forecasting.

Mr Shaw explained the applicant would be required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 143.

Variation of conditions 4 and 16 of Planning Permission CC/98/00156/FUL (Change of use to A3 (food and drink) licensed premises) to i) vary condition 4 to allow later last orders up to 11.30pm on Fridays, Saturdays and Bank Holiday Mondays so as to align with the Premises License; and ii)  vary condition 16 to control the timing and volume of amplified music.

Defer for site visit

Having declared a predetermination in this item Cllr Quail withdrew from the meeting.

Mr Mew introduced the report. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an additional comment from the CDC Environmental Protection team and two additional third-party comments objecting to the proposal.

Mr Mew outlined the site location, which was near the city centre and within the Chichester Conservation Area.

Mr Mew showed the existing floor plan and confirmed there would be no material changes to the building. He clarified the amendments to conditions being applied for and how they differed from the existing conditions.

Mr Mew highlighted the number of listed buildings in the area, the building’s proximity to The Prebendal School and other public houses in the area.

Representations were received from;

Cllr Anne Scicluna – Chichester City Council

Mrs Jane Langford – Objector

Canon Simon Holland – Objector

Mr Paul Nichols – Objector

Mr Colin Rhodes – Objector

Mr Alan Green – Objector

Mr Michael Robson – Agent

Cllr James Vivian – CDC member

*The Chairman had used his discretion to merge the objector and supporter allocations on Agenda Items 6 and 7.

Before opening the debate, the Chairman invited Mr Mew and Mr Thomson to comment on some of the concerns raised by the representors.

Addressing concerns raised over the playing of amplified music, Mr Mew drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 3, which set out the proposed details the applicant must adhere to if they were to play such music at the venue.

Addressing concerns of a ‘dancefloor;’ Mr Mew confirmed the term had been referenced in some of the application papers, however, he assured the Committee this did not mean the venue was a night club nor did it mean it could become a nightclub.

Responding to a noise assessment prepared by local residents, Mr Thomson confirmed that officers had considered the report. However, the report had misinterpreted information and did not use the correct parameters for noise assessment associated with this type of establishment.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Mew reiterated the building was not a nightclub.

Mr Mew clarified Condition 16 of the existing application was enforceable, he informed the Committee the enforcement team had served a notice on the applicant; however, this was currently being held in abeyance whilst the submitted application is determined. The proposed condition 3 offered a more robust approach to managing the impact of music played at the venue, in officer opinion the amendment would still conserve the character and setting of heritage assets within the location.

On the matter of Anti-Social Behaviour; Mr Mew drew attention to comments received from Sussex Police (paragraph 6.2, page 111). He acknowledged there had been some sensitivity and had followed up initial comments up with the Sussex Police Licensing officer who confirmed there were no current issues with the pub and did not object to the hours being brought in line with the hours permitted in the premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item 144.

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.

Permit

Having declared a predetermination in this item Cllr Quail withdrew from the meeting.

Mr Mew introduced the report. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an additional condition to safeguard the architectural and historic character of the Listed Building.

Mr Mew highlighted the site location.

Mr Mew outlined where the proposed repair and maintenance works would be carried out.

Representations were received from;

Mr Martyn Bell – Objector

Cllr James Vivian – CDC member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns of a dancefloor; Mr Mew clarified where exactly it had been stated in the papers, but assured members the application was not for a nightclub, dancing was not controlled by any condition and was not relevant to the application being considered.

Mr Mew confirmed that if the building were not listed the proposed works would not require a planning application.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to permit.

Resolved; permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

*Members took a 30-minute break

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

Demolition of existing office building and redevelopment for 9 dwellings, including access, parking, landscaping, amenity space and associated infrastructure.

Refuse

Mr Thomas introduced the report and explained the reason for the application being brought back to Committee, as set out in paragraph 1 (page 150).

Mr Thomas outlined the site location, and confirmed the application was for the construction of nine dwellings.

The committee were shown the proposed layout and access arrangements.

Mr Thomas concluded that because the applicant was unable to enter into a S106 agreement the application was now recommended for refusal.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Thomas explained the applicant had been unable to secure nitrate mitigation within their anticipated time frame and therefore wished to sell the site on.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to refuse.

Resolved; refuse, for the reasons set out in the report.

Redevelopment of the site with creation of 5 no. flats and parking, landscaping and associated works. (Variation of condition 2 of permission 20/03226/FUL - retrospective alteration to entrance gates, landscaping, site layout fenestration alterations, timber detailing, additional roof light and alteration to balcony).

Defer for S106 then permit

Mr Mew introduced the report. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an addendum to the paragraph 3.2.

Mr Mew outlined the site location. He showed the Committee the approved plans and highlighted the variations between applications.

Mr Mew detailed some of the amendments; explaining that the garden had been split and provided space for apartments 1 and 2, instead of the communal facility as approved. To prevent overlooking he showed how the balcony walls on apartments 3 and 4 had been raised.

Mr Mew highlighted the access arrangements; the entrance had been narrowed, however, WSCC had raised no objection to the amendment.

Representations were received from;

Mr Bartlett – objector (for health reasons Mr Bartlett had been unable to attend a copy of his statement was circulated to members of the Committee and uploaded on the Planning Portal)

Mrs Kerry Simmons – Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Mr Mew confirmed the application was retrospective and had been brought forward as part of enforcement investigations. In addition, Mrs Stevens acknowledged concerns regarding the application, however, she reminded the Committee that the fact the application was retrospective was not a material consideration.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of 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.

Small agricultural barn.

Refuse, against officer recommendation

Mr Thomas introduced the report. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; additional third-party comments; additional supporting information; officer opinion to Counsel Opinion and an addendum to paragraph 8.16.

Following a deferral at Committee on 6 December 2023 the Committee had since undertaken a site visit on 8 January 2024.

Mr Thomas outlined the site location which was within the Parish of Bosham and the Chichester Harbour National Landscape. He confirmed the parcels of land which were in the applicant’s ownership.

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

Representations were received from;

Cllr Adrian Moss - CDC Member

Mr Tavis Cannell – Objector

Mr Alex Macdonald – Objector

Mr Steven O’Brien – Objector

Mr John Wells – Applicant

Bosham Parish Council – statement read by Cllr Adrian Moss

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Regarding the agricultural need for the barn; Miss Smith confirmed the agricultural need for the barn was a relevant consideration for the Committee.

Miss Smith provided further clarification on the wording in the new Countryside and Rights of Way Act and how it differed from the previous.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in against the report recommendation to permit.

Cllr Burkhart proposed the Committee refuse the application as the development was unjustified; in an elevated position and by reason of its siting and design would not conserve or enhance the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Cllr Burton seconded the proposal.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in in favour of Cllr Burkhart’s proposal to refuse.

Resolved; refuse, for the reasons set out above.

*Members took a ten-minute break

Erection of single storey building comprising the following classes E, F1(a) and F2(b) uses: fitness gym (indoor sport), offices/community room, children's nursery (education) and veterinary practice (medical) (Revisions to previously approved scheme).

Defer for S106 then permit

Ms Bell introduced the report. She gave the Committee a verbal update informing them an additional representation had been received from Chichester Harbour Conservancy, who raised no objection to the application but requested a more precise soft landscaping condition be included as part of the application (Ms Bell explained that condition 21 as proposed was the standard condition) and; an additional condition be included requesting the proposed solar panels be wholly black in colour (including edging and surroundings). Ms Bell confirmed that officers considered this a reasonable request and were happy to accept as additions to conditions 10 and 21.

Ms Bell outlined the site location and its proximity to the Chichester Harbour. She highlighted the site access (which would remain the same), and the other buildings which were already on site including the Co-op, café, and doctors’ surgery.

Ms Bell detailed the application and different uses proposed as part of the new development include an indoor gym, nursery, and vets. She drew attention to the bund, which was currently in place, and explained how this would be removed and replaced.

The Committee were shown the proposed parking arrangements, Ms Bell confirmed that WSCC had reviewed the proposals and were satisfied there was sufficient capacity.

Ms Bell gave a brief summary of the planning history on the site.

Representations were received from;

Mr Peter Sims (The Bosham Association) – Objector

Mrs Nicola Trice - Supporter

Mrs Elizabeth Lawrence – Agent

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member (Statement read by Cllr Johnson)

Before opening the debate, the Chairman invited Ms Bell to respond to concerns raised regarding proposed parking arrangements.

Ms Bell clarified the arrangements and showed the Committee how the applicant had amended the proposals to accommodate additional parking within the current parking area. She assured the Committee that following concerns raised from early submissions there would be no parking provision for users in the industrial estate.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

Responding to concerns regarding access to the site; Ms Bell explained access was already established to the site from Delling Lane, there was no accident data for the last five years and WSCC had raised no objection.

Regarding trees on the site; Ms bell confirmed these would be removed and replaced as part of the landscaping condition.

On the matter of parking spaces; Ms Bell confirmed the size of proposed parking space met the required standard.

Responding to hours of operation for the nursery; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 26 (page 224) which set out the permitted hours of operation for all premises in the development, with the exception of the veterinary practice.

Regarding the size of the gym; Ms Bell highlighted the unit which would be used as a gym, which was 92sqm in total.

On the matter of electric charging points; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 19 (page 222).

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to defer for S106 then permit.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.

Highways depot comprising maintenance building, salt barn and ancillary offices plus parking, landscaping and all associated engineering works.

APPLICATION WITHDRAWN

As announced by the Chairman this item had been withdrawn by the applicant.

Change of use of the ground floor from Flexible Use between retail (Class A1) and contact centre (Sui Generis) to Use Class E (Commercial, Business and Service).

Approved

Miss Cranmer introduced the report. She drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an amendment to condition 3.

Miss Cranmer highlighted the application site and explained the building was Grade 2 listed. She informed the Committee the application was for change of use only, there would be no internal or external changes to the building.

Miss Cranmer detailed what uses would be permitted and what use had been removed from the application.

Representations were received from;

Mrs Elizabeth Hamilton – Applicant

Members had no comments or questions and moved straight to the vote.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to approve.

Resolved; approve, subject to the conditions and informatives set out at paragraph 10.1 of the report. including the amendments to Condition 3 as set out in the agenda update sheet.

Use of grassland for permissible access recreation site for the local community. With a circular pathway, 2 no. wildlife ponds, a viewing spot with bench, installation of dog proof stock fencing and native hedgerows and trees.

Approved

Miss Cripps introduced the report. She drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an amendment to condition 3 and an additional condition – condition 5.

Miss Cripps outlined the site location which was located near to the Hampers Green housing estate. She explained the land had been used for sheep grazing but this had now ceased.

Miss Cripps explained the application was for a permissible recreation site which would include the creation of a walkway and two ponds. She informed the Committee the applicant had secured FIPL funding from DEFRA to deliver the scheme.

There were no representations.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

On the issue of parking provision; Miss Cripps informed the Committee there was no parking provision as part of the application. It was possible for users to park on the road if required, however, it is anticipated that most users would be from the neighbouring estate.

Regarding maintenance of the site; Miss Cripps confirmed the applicant would continue to maintain the site.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to approve.

Resolved; approve, subject to the conditions and informatives set out at paragraph 10.1 of the report.

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 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 amended)

As announced by the Chairman the following item was considered; Response to Government consultation on ‘Street vote development orders.

Mrs Stevens introduced the report. She explained what ‘Street Vote Development Orders’ (SVDO) were and what the purpose of the consultation was.

Mrs Stevens raised several concerns that officers had regarding the introduction of SVDO’s and had been included in the proposed response, including a verbal update following comments from the Elections Manager who had raised concerns around the proposals for holding a referendum.

Regarding the weight a SVDO had to give to a Neighbourhood Plan (NHP); Mrs Stevens explained an SVDO did not have to comply the development plan, which includes Neighbourhood Plans, so they could potentially undermine work undertaken on a Neighbourhood Plan.

Responding to what benefits an SVDO might offer; Mrs Stevens drew the Committee’s attention to page 32 of the supplement pack which set the perceived benefits including a possible increase in house prices for owners, increase in choice for non-homeowners and less pressure on the green belt (albeit this is not relevant to Chichester District).

Mrs Stevens clarified that a referendum for an SVDO would only be open to residents within the street, it would not be open to the wider area.

On the matter of whether an SVDO could be applied to rural areas; Mrs Stevens confirmed an SVDO could be used in rural areas. She explained there are parameters on the number of storeys which could be permitted depending on how densely populated an area is.

Mrs Stevens acknowledged comments regarding the potential consequence of neighbourhood friction and agreed to strengthen the responses to highlight this concern.

Mrs Stevens agreed to include postal voting in the response to Q43 & Q53.

Mrs Stevens agreed to amend the response to Q46 to highlight concerns regarding whether discretion should be applied.

Mrs Stevens asked the Committee to forward any further comments they may have within the next 10 days.

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

Resolved; That the Planning Committee considered and agreed the attached responses (as amended) to the government consultation on ‘Street Vote Development Orders.’

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.