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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

Apologies for absence had been received from Mr Wilding and Mrs Johnson.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 7 October 2020.

RESOLVED

That with the addition of the following sentence to the minutes for planning application EWB/19/00431/AGR – Hundredsteddle Farm, Hundredsteddle Lane, Birdham:

‘Members wished for it to be noted that they supported farming and agricultural enterprise, and the suggested potential for a reduction in vehicle movements which would have resulted from the proposed application.’

that the minutes of 7 October 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.

Miss Golding advised that although item 5 on the agenda, CC/20/01914/FUL – St James Industrial Estate, Westhampnett Road, Chichester was the Council’s own application, legislation states that the Council should determine its own applications.  Miss Golding further advised that although two Members of the Committee were cabinet Members (Mr Briscoe and Mr Sutton), and the cabinet had recently debated tenancy of the site, that did not lead them to predetermination and both Members would be permitted to take part in the debate and vote.  Both Mr Briscoe and Mr Sutton confirmed that had not predetermined their views regarding the application.

Rev. Bowden declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/20/01914/FUL, CC/19/03122/REM and CC/20/02322/ADV as a Member of Chichester City Council.

Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/20/01914/FUL, CC/19/03122/REM and BI/20/01130/FUL as a Member of Chichester City Council.

Mrs Purnell declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/20/01914/FUL, CC/19/03122/REM and BI/20/01130/FUL as a Member of Chichester City Council.

Mrs Sharp declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/20/01914/FUL, CC/19/03122/REM and CC/20/02322/ADV as a Member of Chichester City Council.

Redevelopment of the existing industrial estate, including demolition of the existing buildings. The scheme provides approximately 4448m2 (47877ft) of lettable industrial space all under B1b, B1c and B8 use classes with 5 no. replacement buildings.

Permit

Rev Bowden proposed that item 5 was deferred to the following Planning Committee meeting, due the volume of information contained within the agenda update sheet and the short time Members had been given to read the information. Rev Bowden added that he also considered there were issues related to the Council upholding transparency. 

Mr Whitty acknowledged that there were a number of changes on the agenda update sheet, but confirmed it was not uncommon for this document to list changes including to conditions; and, it was not unreasonable to continue to consider the matter at the current meeting.

Mrs Sharp confirmed that she would support Rev Bowden’s proposal to defer, as she considered the information provided by the highway authority had been difficult to follow and Mr Shaw had not been able to commit to a site visit to provide further details.

Mr Whitty advised that there had been a number of amendments related to the application in response to concerns raised, but the changes were relatively minor and it was not statutorily necessary to further consult with regards to changes which were not materially or significantly different. Mr Whitty confirmed there was no reason to defer determination prior to the officer’s presentation and debate and following the debate Members could then take the decision as to whether a deferment was necessary.   

Mr Shaw confirmed he had provided further information earlier in the day, prior to the meeting in response to Members requests for clarification received the previous day and could expand on the information as required during the meeting. In response to Mrs Sharp, Mr Shaw confirmed he had been unable to attend a site visit due to other commitments.

Mr Thomson further concurred that deferment relating to environmental health information was unnecessary, as only minor changes to conditions had been made and he could also expand on the information as required during the meeting. 

Miss Golding further advised that officers should be permitted to present the item and provide an explanation of the matters included on the agenda update sheet before considering deferment.  Rev Bowden confirmed he was prepared to accept officer’s advice.

Ms Thatcher presented the item to Members and outlined the details provided in the agenda update sheet. The agenda update sheet included typing amendments and further alterations following recent Government legislative changes regarding use classes, which had taken place after the application had been received. The Council’s solicitor had advised the description relating to the development remain as referenced with the previous use classes, and for consistency any subsequent conditions would also relate to the previous use classes, in accordance with the transitional provisions in the 2020 regulations. Ms Thatcher confirmed amended applicant details had also been corrected and post publication, a further letter of objection had been received which was listed on the sheet. An amended proposed site plan had been received, which detailed that the north-eastern section of the boundary wall would be retained, but realigned 1.2 metres to the west, to accommodate  ...  view the full minutes text for item 151.

All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 141 dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, informal open space and associated work on Phase 3, Parcel C, pursuant to permission 14/04301/OUT (Scheme B).

Permit

Mr Harris presented the item to Members and drew attention to information on the agenda update sheet.

Mr Harris responded to Members’ comments and questions.  With regards to the photovoltaic panels, and other sustainability measures, they would be dealt with subsequently under the conditions of the outline consent.  The indication in the sustainability report was that the applicant was looking to achieve a 19% CO₂ reduction, which was the target sought which had been achieved in scheme A, and it was reasonable to expect this would be repeated. 

Mr Harris confirmed he would check the references in to application drawings in conditions 10 and 11 and amendment as necessary.  Mr Harris also confirmed that there would be no change to proposed planting scheme relative to Scheme A.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

Erection of 2 no. non-illuminated V signage boards and 4 no. non-illuminated flag advertisements.

Permit

Mr Harris presented the item to Members.

Members did not require any further information.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

Proposed farmhouse, garage and access. (Removal of condition 2 of permission KD/24/74 - removal of the agricultural occupancy condition).

Permit

Mr Mew presented the item to Members and drew attention to information provided in the agenda update sheet.

Mr Mew responded to Members’ comments and questions. 

The Chairman advised Members that the lawful certificate made the agricultural tie unenforceable and that the raising of game was not listed as agricultural, which may have been the original breach.  Mr Mew confirmed with regards to the definition of agriculture, the raising of game was related to a sport rather than food and therefore did not meet the definition, which was the reason for which the condition had been breached, and for that conclusion being drawn on the certificate of lawfulness.  Mr Mew added that he could appreciate the Parish Council not wishing to condone a breach of policy, but there was no a breach due to the certificate of lawfulness being in place.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

Erection of 1 no. 3 bed bungalow.

Permit

Mr Mew presented the item to Members.

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions.  Mr Whitty confirmed that the fall-back position was that the building had prior approval.  In terms of the ability to apply for prior approval and removing permitted development initially, that could be done when granting new structures, but if an existing building was being considered and a change of use applied for.  This also presented difficulty, due to the applicant already having the benefit of permitted development rights with that building, and the justification in each situation would have to be examined.  With regards to the lack of a pavement, a dwelling was already granted within the location via prior approval, so could not be considered.  With regards to the limited garden, the proposed building was only one metre larger than the existing building and on the matter of parking, the proposed building would sit further back on the site, so would allow for more parking to the front.  On the matter of the pylons, there was already an existing building and therefore that was not a matter which could be considered in relation to refusal. 

Mr Mew explained that with regards to nitrates, the proposed dwelling was not in an area which required such mitigation, although this was included in condition 5 which required details of the maintenance and management of the package treatment system.  Mr Mew further confirmed on the matter of the reed-bed, as there was not a requirement to address nitrates and there was a fall-back under permitted development, it would not meet the test with regards to inclusion within a condition.

Mr Whitty advised that a planning authority cannot control parking on the highway and therefore cannot place a condition in this regard, but could ensure there was sufficient provision for parking construction vehicles on the site and to strengthen condition 3c, information would be placed in brackets to state sufficient space must be available to avoid construction vehicles parking on the highway.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

Members took a ten minute break

The Planning Committee are requested to consider the report and its appendices and make the following resolution:

That the Planning Committee approves the proposed revisions to the Interim Policy Statement (IPS) for Housing for development management purposes to be used to assess relevant planning applications with immediate effect.

Approved

Miss Chivers presented the item to Members, drew attention to information provided in the agenda update sheet, and confirmed the title would be altered to ‘Interim Position Statement for Housing’.

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions.  Miss Chivers confirmed that ‘Council’ and ‘Authority’ both referred in this instance to the Local Planning Authority and this would be altered within the statement for clarity and consistency. 

Miss Chivers confirmed that reference to LTN 120 and Manual for Streets could be included.  Mr Whitty advised that as numerous pieces of guidance could be referenced, it may be more appropriate to state ‘and other relevant government guidance, including the LTN 120 and Manual for Streets’. 

With regards to paragraph 11, Miss Chivers responded she would need to review the reason for removal of reference to winter and ground water monitoring, but this may be due to its inclusion within the Surface Water and Foul Water Supplementary Planning Document. 

On the matter of the fluidity of changes in planning policy, Miss Chivers responded that reference to could be made to emerging information and guidance which occurred during the lifetime of the statement.  Mr Ayling added that a general acknowledgement that information was changing, may be more appropriate, and that the statement would remain under review.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

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

Mr Whitty confirmed that with regards to FU/18/00323/CONHI – Land south of West Stoke Farm, West Stoke, Funtington, an appeal had been lodged and Miss Lang further responded this matter was with the planning inspectorate and an appeal date was awaited.  Mr Whitty further confirmed that officers would write to request an update.

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.

The Chairman confirmed in response to Members citing a number of updates since publication of the agenda that this information would be provided at the next Committee meeting.

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.

In response to Members questions, Mr Whitty confirmed he would raise the matter of Goodwood Estate’s plans for a biomass energy system with South Downs National Park Authority and respond further to Members with details.

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 Chair 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.