Agenda, decisions and minutes

Planning Committee
Wednesday 6 November 2019 9.30 am

Venue: Committee Rooms, East Pallant House. View directions

Contact: Democratic Services  Email:  democraticservices@chichester.gov.uk

Note: Planning Application SY/19/00321/FUL, Land East of Manor Road, Manor Road, Selsey will now be considered as the first application on the agenda. 

Items
No. Item

16.

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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

 

No apologies for absence had been received and all Members were present.

 

The Chairman confirmed that planning Application SY/19/00321/FUL item 11 would be taken as the first planning application. 

 

17.

Approval of Minutes pdf icon PDF 99 KB

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 2 October 2019.

Minutes:

RESOLVED

 

That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 October 2019 be approved and signed by the Chairman with one amendment that Cllr Sutton had been present at the meeting, but had not been recorded as present.

18.

Urgent Items

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 19.

Minutes:

There were no urgent items.

 

19.

Declarations of Interests pdf icon PDF 61 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.

 

Section 5 of the Notes at the end of the agenda front sheets has a table

showing how planning applications are referenced.

 

Minutes:

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications BI/19/01396/FUL and WW/18/02708/DOM as a member of Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

 

Rev Bowden declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/19/0666/DOM, CC/19/01531/REM and CC/19/02014/DOC As a member of Chichester City Council and a prejudicial interest in planning application CC/19/00666/DOM as a neighbour of the property submitting the application was a personal friend.

 

Mr Briscoe declared a personal interest in respect of planning application WE/18/03132/FUL as a member of Westbourne Parish Council and a prejudicial interest in CC/19/00666/DOM and a prejudicial interest in WE/18/03132/FUL as the applicant was a personal friend.

 

Mr Fowler declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SDNP/19/04212/FUL as a member of Midhurst Community Partnership.

 

Mrs Johnson declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SY/19/00321/FUL as a member of Selsey Town Council.

 

Mr McAra declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SDNP/19/04212/FUL as a member of Midhurst Town Council.

 

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications BI/19/01408/FUL, CC/19/01531/REM, CC/19/02014/DOC, SY/19/00321/FUL and WR/19/01926/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council.

 

Mr H Potter declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SDNP/19/04212/FUL as an appointed member of South Downs National Park Authority.

 

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications BI/19/01408/FUL, CC/19/01531/REM, CC/19/02014/DOC and WR/19/01926/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council, and planning application SY/19/00321/FUL as both a member of West Sussex County Council and as a member of Selsey Town Council.

 

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/19/0666/DOM, CC/19/01531/REM and CC/19/02014/DOC As a member of Chichester City Council.

20.

SY/19/00321/FUL - Land East Of Manor Road, Manor Road, Selsey, West Sussex pdf icon PDF 735 KB

Hybrid planning application - Phase 1 (Full application) comprising 119
residential dwellings, new access from Manor Road,
public open space, landscaping and associated works. Outline planning
application for Phase 2 for up to 74 dwellings and
associated infrastructure (with all matters reserved).

 

Decision:

 

Permit

Minutes:

MrsJohnson left the table for the next item to which she had declared a prejudicial interest.

Mr Bushell introduced the application and presented a series of slides.

Additional information was provided on the agenda update sheet relating to the applicants details, information regarding meetings between the applicant and Selsey Town Council and additional third party objections, further clarification for the Surface Water Drainage section of the report, amendment of conditions and additional conditions.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Michael Sully – Parish Council

Mr Brendon Hogan – Objector

Mr Christopher Dean- Objector

Mr Andrew Brown – Objector

Mrs Lisa Jackson – Agent

Mr David Smith – Agents Drainage Consultant

Mr Timothy Johnson – CDC Member (represented by Mrs. Donna Johnson)

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding the weight to be given to the Neighbourhood Plan which had not yet reached referendum stage, the number of proposed dwellings relative to the strategic Local Plan allocation for Selsey, whether the highways advice on the previous application had lapsed and required review, the number of proposed three storey dwellings, figures for bat and bird boxes, triggers for conditions, the complexity of surface water drainage solution relative to anticipated tidal and inland water levels, the robustness of the liner and its anchors for the attenuation pond, the siting of a play area in the middle of the Phase 1 central open space area, and the optimum angle for the installation of the photo voltaic panels.  Mr Kier advised that the design of the surface water drainage proposals was the result of significant consultation between the Council’s Drainage Engineer and the applicant’s consultant. The attenuation pond was to be widened, deepened and lined to exclude groundwater and increase its volume. It would be brought online with controlled release of water at no more than existing greenfield rates into the Southern Water sewer and then discharge through the surface water outfall to East Beach, which had significant capacity.  The discharge from the proposed future care home on the adjoining land parcel outside of the application site would be upstream of the attenuation systems. In respect of the pond liners failing or requiring repair, these would be the responsibility of the estate management company to maintain and resolve any issues, but the liners had an estimated life of upwards of twenty years.

Mr Bushell responded that the Neighbourhood Plan had reached an advanced stage of preparation and although not yet a ‘made’ plan it had been though Independent Examination and found to be sound.  In this regard the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that at this stage the Plan can be afforded significant weight in terms of decision making.  With regards to the highways issue, the assessment had been based on the uplift of an extra 34 dwellings, from the previous permission for a 139 dwellings, which had been assessed at 159 dwellings. The uplift of 34 dwellings would result in an additional 19 traffic trips during the am peak  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20.

21.

BI/19/01396/FUL - Houseboat Living The Dream, Berth No.1, Chichester Marina, Birdham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 7EJ pdf icon PDF 375 KB

Replacement houseboat.

 

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens introduced the application.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Timothy Firmston – Parish Council (represented by Elizabeth Hamilton)

Jonathan Hogan – Agent

 

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding the size of the proposed houseboat, whether it would present any issues with through navigation and the suggested conditions received from Chichester Harbour Conservancy (CHC).  Mrs Stevens responded the dimensions of the proposed house were acceptable.  Mr Barrett, as the Authority’s CHC appointed representative, confirmed that there are no proposals to develop the Canal further and therefore through-navigation would not present any issues.  Mrs Stevens drew the Committees attention to the report which listed the suggested conditions received from CHC including the installation of the houseboat to take place outside the bird breeding season.  The outbuilding was already in-situ and did not require permission.  Mrs Stevens added that samples of the materials for the houseboat’s construction would be submitted for approval and that the in accordance with a CHC suggested condition, the visual appearance of the houseboat would be required to be both maintained and retained.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed. 

22.

BI/19/01408/FUL - Harbour House, 22 Greenacres, Birdham, PO20 7HL pdf icon PDF 793 KB

Demolition of existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling, detached garage with annex accommodation, swimming pool, boat house and workshop.

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens introduced the application.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Timothy Firmston – Parish Council (represented by Elizabeth Hamilton)

Mr Simon Randall – Agent

 

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding whether the north-facing glazing would have any impact on navigation and how the blinds for the rooflights would be operated.  Mrs Stevens responded that CHC had not made any comments in relation to impact on navigation of the glazing and drew the Committees attention to a condition which required rooflights to have automatic ‘dusk till dawn’ blinds, to be retained and maintained to an operational manner, and that the wording could be adjusted to include storm shutters.  Mr Whitty reminded the Committee that such a requirement would be difficult to enforce.

 

Members sought further clarification regarding the potential request to use recycled building materials.  Mr Whitty confirmed that this could be explored with applicant and added as an informative.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed. 

 

Rev Bowden left the table for the next item

to which he had declared a personal interest.

23.

CC/19/00666/DOM - 125 Cedar Drive, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 3EL pdf icon PDF 761 KB

Demolition of garage and side extension, erection of two storey side and
rear extensions and alterations and additions to fenestration.
Fenestration
changes of the porch. Loft conversion.

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens introduced the application.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Jonathan Murden – Objector

Mrs Madelaine Craggs – Supporter

 

Mrs Golding confirmed that Mrs Clare Apel was present in the public gallery and that although not a member of the Committee was required by the code to declare a prejudicial interest.

 

Mr Michael Bryer – representing the applicant Mrs Bryer

Mr Richard Plowman – CDC Member

 

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding whether any of the work could be carried out under permitted development, conditions regarding obscured glass, issues of the development overlooking neighbouring properties, screening with vegetation and potential Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs).  Mr Whitty responded that a proportion of the work which was the subject of the application required planning permission and therefore the permitted development element which would not on its own require permission, would also do so.  Mr Whitty added with regards to the trees and their protection by TPO, this would only be possible where it was considered to be in the wider public interest and not private interests, and further explained that of the four vertical windows, the two outer panes would be required to be obscured as included in the conditions, which would provide light to, and outlook from, the room but limit the overlooking of neighbouring amenities.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed. 

 

Mr Wilding left the meeting and did not return.

 

Members took a 35 minute lunch break.

24.

CC/19/01531/REM - Land West Of Centurion Way And West Of Old Broyle Road, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 3PH pdf icon PDF 762 KB

All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 91 dwellings with
associated parking, landscaping, informal open space and associated
work on Parcel 2B, pursuant to permission 14/04301/OUT

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Miss Bell introduced the application.

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to an amendment to the Decided Plans Table.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee: 

Mr Richard Plowman – Parish Council

Miss Louise Goldsmith – West Sussex County Council Member

Miss Laura Humphries – Applicant 

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding visitor parking provision, public bus provision, permeable private drive paving, photo voltaic panels, the link to bus route, self-build plots, whether a contribution would be made to the A27, progress on the southern access route, timetable for delivery of whole site, the disposal of sewage, car charging points, pavements, landscaping, turning circles for refuge vehicles, and solar street lighting.

Mr Shaw confirmed that there were thirty visitor spaces throughout the central road, with further scope for parking on one side of the road, and therefore a lack of visitor parking is not envisaged. The Road Safety Audit was due to be completed by the developer, and WSCC had yet to see a copy, although that was not considered an issue.  Mr Shaw confirmed the bus route would be on the spine road, the details of which are contained in the Section 106 agreement.  With regards to side road vehicle cross over, a raised speed table is proposed to slow vehicles and give greater priority to pedestrians.  Cycling infrastructure linking to Centurion Way is not a material consideration for the current application but would be so in relation to the wider site and was considered at the outline planning permission stage.  A £1,374 financial contribution would be made per dwelling, for the A27 to Highways England as agreed as part of the outline permission.  Mr Shaw confirmed he was not able to provide a more current update with regards to the southern access, than had been recently given by the developer.  The outline permission has a condition requiring details of vehicle charging points for the local centre and the car park for the Sustainable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANGS), but there was currently no provision for the houses themselves, although they could be retrofitted.  With regards to the pedestrian footway on one side only of the carriageway, Mr Shaw confirmed that in his personal and professional opinion, a footway on both sides of the carriageway or a shared surface for both would be preferred, however this does not warrant a reason for refusal, or present a significant safety issue.

Miss Bell drew the Committee’s attention to the report in relation to comments from the drainage officer at the discharge of condition stage, and there was a note on the hard-surfacing plan to increase the permeable paving if required.  With regards to the solar panels, the amount had increased from seven square metres to twelve square metres per property and there was an informative to allow purchasers to increase the number of solar panels at their expense before completion of the roof.  Miss Bell added with regards to the cycle route and Centurion Way,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

25.

CC/19/02014/DOC - Land On The West Side Of Broyle Road, Chichester, West Sussex pdf icon PDF 637 KB

Part Discharge of Condition 5 of Outline Permission CC/14/04301/OUT -
Construction and Environmental Management Plan (Parcel P1)

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Miss Bell introduced the application.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Miss Louise Goldsmith – West Sussex County Council Member

Mr Rob Collett – Applicant

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding the number of vehicle movements (140 or 280), how will abnormal loads would be routed, the wheel-washing for vehicles leaving the site and where will this flow to, the temporary access from Old Broyle Road and the safety of the footpath, air quality related to vehicle movements, control of smaller vehicles below 3.5 tonnes and toilet provision on site.  Mr Shaw confirmed the vehicles movements would total approximately 140 and the developer had not confirmed that they were expecting any abnormal loads, and were this to be planned, West Sussex County Council would be consulted which would be a separate matter.  With regards to the wheel-washing, any flow on to the highway could be enforced if causing a safety issue.  Temporary vehicle access was a matter of detail, which would be reviewed as part of the construction management plan with consideration to the safety of all road users.  With regards to vehicles below 3.5 tonnes, there would not be any control for such vehicles, as the HGV vehicles movements were the focus for the County Council, which had a far greater impact.

During the discussion members sought further clarification regarding the construction road (existing farm track) within the site and potential damage to tree roots and sediment wash off into the chalk stream, control of litter from construction workers, and times of HGVs entering and exiting the site.  Miss Bell responded that air quality issues were outside the discharge of the planning condition, although discussion could be had in a different arena.  Toilets would be emptied on site and waste removed which was included in the number of vehicle movements.  With regards to the track, Miss Bell confirmed this was initially the existing farm track and once available the spine road would be used.  Fencing would protect the tree line and Miss Bell added that she did not have any information with regards to the chalk stream, and she was currently awaiting a response from the Environment Agency.  Mr Shaw confirmed the time restrictions for vehicle movements related to the avoidance of school times and were contained within the report.  The developer would confirmed these times to all contractors.  The general construction hours were 7.30 until 18.00 on Monday to Friday and 8.00 until 13.00 on a Saturdays and not on Sundays or public holidays.  Mr Whitty advised that a number of matters had been debated which went beyond the control of planning, but considered the protection of the trees and the chalk stream important and suggest this matter was delegated to officers, which may include consulting the Environment Agency if necessary.  

Mr Whitty confirmed the resolution of the Committee was to delegate the application to officers, but that the officers would first look into the matters raised, including protection of the trees and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

26.

EWB/19/01464/FUL - Beach Hut, 17 Tamarisk Walk, East Wittering, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 8DQ pdf icon PDF 481 KB

Replacement beach hut.

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens introduced the application.

 

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mrs Zoe Shore – Applicant

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

 

Mr Briscoe left the table for the next item

to which he had declared a personal interest.

27.

WE/18/03132/FUL - Racton View, Marlpit Lane, Hambrook, Westbourne, PO10 8EQ pdf icon PDF 853 KB

Change of use of land to a private gypsy and traveller caravan pitch
consisting of 1 no. mobile home, 1 no. touring caravan and 1 no. utility/day
room with associated works.

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Miss Boddy introduced the application.

 

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding the current weight taken in relation to the emerging Local Plan, and where the applicant was residing.  Miss Boddy responded that some weight could be given to the Local Plan which was confirmed by Mr Whitty as having of reached the stage of Strategic Environmental Assessment.  Miss Boddy added that the applicant was currently living in a touring caravan on the site.

 

Recommendation to defer for S106 then Permit agreed. 

28.

WR/19/01926/FUL - The Bat And Ball Country Pub, Newpound, Wisborough Green, RH14 0EH pdf icon PDF 430 KB

Erection of polytunnel.

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Mr Saunders introduced the application.

 

Additional information was provided on the Agenda Update Sheet in relation to a condition.

 

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Peter Drummond – Parish Representative

 

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding whether the surrounding area could be landscaped, a future more suitable structure, a potential time-limit by which a more suitable structure could be installed, and that the presence of the structure was contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan.  Mr Saunders responded that a temporary planning permission could be granted and the applicant required to, investigate a more permanent solution.  Mr Whitty added that the Committee would need to be clear in its conclusions that the structure was unacceptable but recognise its necessity for the operation of the business, if it were to consider granting a temporary permission.

 

Members sought further clarification regarding the inclusion of a condition regarding screening or whether the current structure could be moved to a more acceptable location and the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan.  Mr Whitty responded that a decision could be deferred, but the Committee must be clear as to its reasons for deferral, and should look to either refuse the application or grant a temporary permission if they considered the structure should in the future be replaced with another solution.  Mr Saunders added that the Neighourhood Plan proposals referred to conserving and enhancing the setting of the listed building.  The structure could be screened, and considered to be causing less than substantial harm weighed against public benefit.  Mr Whitty advised that the Committee could take a vote on the officer recommendation, and if that was not carried, a proposal could be put forward.

 

Members further discussed the comments from the Council’s Conservation and Design Offer, the need to pay attention to the Neighbourhood Plan, the necessary support for the business and that a decision must be based on policy. 

 

Reccomendation to permit agreed.

29.

WW/18/02708/DOM - Dolphins, Rookwood Lane, West Wittering, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 8QH pdf icon PDF 470 KB

Proposed steps down through garden to a 1.5 metre long tunnel beneath
public footpath rising through to another set of steps to the foreshore
garden.

 

Additional documents:

Decision:

Refuse contrary to officer recommendation.

Minutes:

Mrs Stevens introduced the application.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Keith Martin – Parish Council

Mr Richard Austin – Objector (Chichester Harbour Conservancy)

Mr George Chapman – Applicant

Mr Whitty advised the Committee on matters cited by the speakers in relation to the public right of way which he confirmed to be a footpath not for cyclists, the use of the land, which is now immune from enforcement action and that the Committee should focus on the application which was in reference only to the construction of the proposed tunnel.   

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding the location sitting within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and Special Protection Area (SPA) and matters associated with those designations and the use of the land.  Mr Whitty advised that the use of the land provided the setting and was lawful, and the matter at hand was whether the proposed tunnel ‘in itself’ was harmful.   

Members sought further clarification regarding the SSSI/SPA in relation to the planning process, and the ambiguity of the boundary.  Mr Whitty responded that it was impossible to precisely identify whether the land was within the SSSI/SPA, although the essence of the matter was the potential impact on the SPA and activities were more likely to have an impact.  With regards to the previous movement of soil to create a path and more level area, it was considered less harmful to not to request this to be reinstated.  Mr Whitty drew the Committee’s attention to comments from Natural England in the report which confirmed the proposed tunnel was outside the designated nature conservation site, however, irrespective of whether the tunnel was within or outside of the designation the test was ‘whether the tunnel would have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SPA’ and although there may be some impacts at the construction stage these can be mitigated.  Overall, the development was assessed as being not of a sufficient scale to have an adverse effect on integrity of the SPA. 

Members further discussed whether the proposed tunnel would be visible from the water, if development was prohibited in an SSSI, potential urbanisation of the location, lighting of the tunnel and whether the handrails would be a further intrusion on the visual appearance of the location.  Mr Whitty responded that small, domestic scale lighting such as solar garden lights could be provided on the land without planning permission and lighting could be controlled to be directed internal to the tunnel as far as possible, and he could not comment on safety of the handrails as this was a matter for the applicant, not the Planning Authority.  Mr Whitty further advised that there was a risk of costs if the matter was taken to an appeal on the grounds of ecological impact, given the advice available to the Council from its own internal experts and that of Natural England.  Having heard the debate by the Committee, if refusal was based on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29.

30.

SDNP/19/04212/FUL - Midhurst Rother College, North Street, Midhurst, GU29 9DT pdf icon PDF 341 KB

Addition of glass side cladding to existing canopies.

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Mr Saunders introduced the application.

 

During the discussion members sought clarification regarding the use of glass, whether the panels could be demountable, the appearance of the installation and whether decals should be added to ensure they were fully visible.  Mr Whitty confirmed that the matter of demountable panels had been discussed with the applicant, but the school considered this was too difficult in terms of removal and storage and that the addition of decals could be added as an informative, but the design should be agreed with the Council.

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed. 

31.

Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions pdf icon PDF 168 KB

This report presents the Schedule of Outstanding Planning Enforcement Contraventions.  The report provides an update on the position of contraventions included in the previous schedule and includes cases that have since been authorised. 

 

Minutes:

Members sought clarification regarding the stage reached with advancing legal proceedings.  Mr Archer confirmed that all matters are with the Council’s barrister and conclusion of the evidence is awaited.

 

32.

Chichester District Council - Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters between 16 September 2019 and 16 October 2019 pdf icon PDF 177 KB

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

Minutes:

Further information was provided on the Agenda Update Sheet amending a date.

 

There were no comments or questions relating to this item.

33.

South Downs National Park - Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters between 16 September 2019 and 16 October 2019 pdf icon PDF 168 KB

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

Minutes:

There were no comments or questions relating to this item.

34.

Consideration of any late items as follows:

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

Minutes:

There were no late items.

 

35.

Exclusion of the Press and Public

There are no restricted items for consideration.

Minutes:

There was no requirement to exclude the press and public.