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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 12 August 2020.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of 12 August 2020 be approved.

The Chair will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under late items.

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.

Rev Bowden declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/20/01046/REM and CC/20/01256/ADV as a Member of Chichester City Council.

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of The Local List as a Chichester District Council appointed Member of Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications LX/20/0161/OUT, CC/20/01046/REM, CC/20/01256/ADV, SDNP/20/01727/FUL and The Local List as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

Mr Potter declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SDNP/20/01727/FUL as a Chichester District Council appointed Member of South Downs National Park Authority.

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications LX/20/0161/OUT, CC/20/01046/REM, CC/20/01256/ADV, SDNP/20/01727/FUL and The Local List as a Member of West Sussex County Council.

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/20/01046/REM and CC/20/01256/ADV as a Member of Chichester City Council.

Outline application with all matters reserved, except for Access (excluding internal estate roads) for the erection of up to 24 no. residentialdwellings.

DEFER

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

The Committee received the following speakers:

Chris Agar – Parish Council

Stuart Holmes – Objector

David Neame – Agent

Gareth Evans – District Council (statement read)

Mr Bushell responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to the weight which could be afforded to progress being made revising the Neighbourhood Plan (NP), Mr Bushell confirmed that the NP was in its very early stages looking at potential housing sites and was not yet sufficiently advanced to carry weight in terms of decision making. The previous application for 22 units was currently the subject of an appeal and had been refused on the basis that the Council at that time was able to demonstrate that it had a five year supply of housing land and that its housing policies which resisted new housing outside of settlement boundaries were up to date.  As of 15th July 2020, the housing policies in the Development Plan which for planning purposes in Loxwood comprises the adopted Local Plan (LP) and the made NP were now out of date and the Council had now introduced its Interim Policy Statement to manage the determination of new applications for housing outside of settlement boundaries.  With regards to the three metre landscape buffer zone as opposed to five metres, Mr Bushell explained that it was necessary to balance the wildlife and screening benefits of the buffer whilst ensuring an effective use of the land for delivering housing and that three metres was considered sufficient for both the planting of vegetation and protection of tree roots and allowing an acceptable density of development.  On the matter of the carriageway widths, the internal layout of the site was a reserved matter which would be assessed as part of the subsequent reserved matters application.

With regard to foul water drainage, Mr Bushell confirmed that there was an on-going dialogue with Southern Water which was looking to improve infrastructure going forward but that on this application Southern Water had raised no objection.

Rev Bowden made a proposal to defer the decision pending a report regarding the progress of the revised NP and further consultations with Southern Water.  The Chairman advised this would result in a delay and therefore a potential appeal against non-determination of the application.  Mr Whitty confirmed that with an appeal currently in progress on the previous application for 22 dwellings a timely decision would be required by the Committee, and added that Southern Water were responsible for providing appropriate services, and a prematurity argument for regarding the proposals running ahead of the NP would not be a sufficient reason for a deferral and therefore he would counsel against such a proposal.

On the matter of the original outline application on the site in 2014 for 25 dwellings which was refused and dismissed on appeal, Mr Bushell explained that this had been refused by Secretary of State as it had been found contrary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 122.

All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 50 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, informal open space and associated works on Phase 5, Parcel F, pursuant to permission14/04301/OUT.

PERMIT

Miss Bell presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided on the update sheet.

The Committee received the following speaker:

Nick Billington – Agent (statement read)

Miss Bell responded to Members’ comments and questions.  Miss Bell confirmed the affordable housing split was being monitored, with both developers Miller Homes, and Linden Homes having an equal requirement to provide a 70/30 split.  Miss Bell confirmed that the matter of the transition from green space to urban street scene, this had been carefully considered as part of the design strategy.  The location in question which was close to the block of flats was a short section of landscaping.  Amendments had been sought which gave further consideration to how the landscaping appeared in conjunction with the spine road.  On the matter of litter bins, the management company could install bins.  Miss Bell confirmed that there would be a condition requiring the developer to replace any vegetation or trees which died within five years, and this would be a the responsibility of either the developers or the management company, depending on ownership of the land at the time.

Miss Bell clarified that the shared cycle/footpath on the western side, and pedestrian/cycle path along the spine road would lead into the local centre, the proposed health centre was not being pursued currently, and with regards to the desire for tree lined streets, it was important to ensure the appropriate number of homes were built on the development and the parcel in question was potentially the most urbanised street.  Miss Bell confirmed officers had worked upon improving this situation with additional vegetation, deeper front gardens, and further vegetation on the street frontage.

Miss Bell explained that with regards to the density, the site complied with the approved parameter plan and a higher level of density was considered more appropriate in the parcel close to the local centre.  On the matter of the ability to ensure vehicles could not access the green open spaces, Miss Bell confirmed that officers were satisfied, and tree planting would limit access.  Mr Whitty added that the matter of bins would be raised with the developers, and Members further commented that officers should also discuss the matters of access for unauthorised vehicles.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit.

Cllr McAra and Cllr Wilding left the meeting

Display of 2 no. non-illuminated V-boards and 18 no. non- illuminated flagpoles.

REFUSE AGAINST OFFICER RECOMMENDATION

Miss Bell presented the item to Members.

Mr Whitty responded to Members’ comments and questions. With regards to the matters which could be taken into consideration in making a decision, Mr Whitty confirmed these would be in relation to the amenity of the location and public safety. 

With regards to the positioning of the flags allowing sufficient space for pedestrians, and size and colour of the flags relating to safety, Miss Bell confirmed that the flags were set-back allowing space for pedestrians and cyclists, the highways authority had agreed the flags complied with their policies, and officers were satisfied with the proposals.  Miss Bell also confirmed, that the number of flags had been reduced via negotiation with the applicants, and that environmental health officers were also satisfied with that the flags would not produce any significant noise.

In a vote Members Refused against officer recommendation.

The Chairman requested that the reasons for the refusal of the application would be required.  Cllr Briscoe proposed that the application was refused on the grounds of the flags having a negative impact on the rural character of the location and also a negative visual impact on an important approach to the city of Chichester, which was seconded by Rev Bowden.

Members took a ten minute break

Mr McAra and Mr Wilding returned to the meeting.

Change of use of all buildings from Residential to Residential Institutions (C2) including 2 no. proposed ancillary annexes. Addition of conservatory with alterations to fenestration to existing office/family room to create annexe (3), change of use of existing garage/carport, infill extension with alterations to fenestration to create annexe (2), change of use of existing garage to laundry and utility facility, with additional staff and visitor parking.

PERMIT

Mr Price presented the item to the Members.

The Committee received the following speaker:

Elena McCloskey – Parish Council

Adrian Collins – Objector

John Pike – Agent (statement read)

Mr Price responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to general permitted development rights, Mr Price confirmed that these rights would not apply as the application was not a dwelling house, but that a condition could be imposed that the buildings would retain C2 use.

With regards to the wall constructed of sleepers, and whether the application was in part retrospective, Mr Price advised that the wall was of robust construction as it was a retaining wall as there was a significant change in level and the garden was terraced, and the wall and some parking spaces were retrospective.  Fencing around the huts at the rear of the main buildings, were for the provision of security, and health and safety for the residents.  Mr Price added that there were also plans for additional planting and water saving measures.

With regards to notices not being visible due to the Covid-19 pandemic as cited by the Parish Council speaker, Mr Price confirmed that greater flexibility had been afforded with regards to timescales for the submission of comments.  The Chairman added that full information was provided on the Council website regarding applications and Mr Whitty confirmed that all statutory obligations had been fulfilled, and the option to request receipt of notification was available.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit.

The Committee is requested to consider the report and make the following resolution:

That the Local List (set out in Appendix 1 to this report) be endorsed for immediate use in validating planning applications, and that officers have delegated authority to amend the local list as necessary prior to the next formal review.

ENDORSED

Mrs Stevens presented the items to Members.

Mrs Stevens responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to the absence of Medmerry as a location from the list as a Special Area of Conservation or Special Protection Area, Miss Stevens confirmed at the time the list was drawn up, Medmerry had not been designated as such, but the relevant list could be amended to include this area once this change had taken place, and Mrs Stevens further advised that recommendation included the ability for officers to update information.

On the matter of Goodwood Estate Mrs Stevens confirmed that there was no obligation to have specific requirements in The Local List with regards to flight paths, and in relation to noise from Goodwood airfield or motor circuit, that would be considered by noise assessment.  Mrs Stevens drew the Committees attention to the relevant section relating to noise sensitive use, which cited aerodrome use.  Mrs Stevens confirmed she would discuss whether the motor circuit should be included with environmental health officers.  In terms of flood risk, Mrs Stevens explained that consultation comments had not been received from the Environment Agency, but the Council’s policy team had referenced the likely future risk of flooding, and one hundred year events going forward, details of which were being utilised for making the Local Plan, and therefore Mrs Stevens would be reviewing this matter for consistency.

With regards to bat surveys, Mrs Stevens confirmed that surveys had to be carried out prior to the submission of a planning application, which was highlighted within the pre-application planning process, to ensure appropriate timings for bat surveys were taken into account.

In relation to foul sewerage Mrs Stevens explained that the issue of nitrates was covered under the off-site ecological impacts section, and the headspace and ability to take the volume of waste water, was included in a separate section, as these were two distinct matters. 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Endorse.

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

NOTED

Members agreed to note this 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.

NOTED

Members agreed to note this item.

The Planning Committee will consider any late items announced by the Chair at the start of this meeting as follows:

a)    Items added to the agenda papers and made available for public inspection

b)    Items which the chairman has agreed should be taken as matters of urgency by reason of special circumstances to be reported at the meeting

There were no late items.

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.