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Committee will be informed at this point in the meeting of any planning applications which have been deferred or withdrawn and so will not be discussed and determined at this meeting.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

Apologies were received from Cllr D Johnson, Cllr Potter and Cllr Sharp.

The minutes relate to the meeting of the Planning Committee on 7 July 2021.

Cllr Oakley asked that it be noted, that whilst he did leave the meeting on the 7 July he did return during minute item 82 and 83.

No other matters were raised.

The minutes of the 7 July were agreed as a true and accurate record.

The chairman will announce any urgent items that due to special circumstances will be dealt with under agenda item 15 (b).

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.

Mr Barrett declared a personal interest in respect of BI/20/02378/FUL as the external appointment to Chichester Harbour Conservancy.

Mr Briscoe declared a predetermination in respect of WE/20/01569/FUL, due to the fact that he had objected to a previous application made by the applicant at this site. Ms Golding confirmed that Mr Briscoe would not be involved in the discussion or decision making for this item, she explained that Mr Briscoe had registered to speak as a member of the public (not as ward member) for this item, he would be allowed to do this and would then be asked to vacate the room.

Mr Oakley declared a person interest in;

·         WE/20/01569/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         TG/17/01699/FUL as a member of both Tangmere Parish Council and West Sussex County Council

·         SI/21/00322/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         SB/20/02297/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

·         BI/20/02378/FUL as a member of West Sussex County Council

Erection of 1 no. dwelling and associated landscaping.

Defer for further information.

As Mr Briscoe had declared a predetermination he withdrew from the committee and took a seat in the public gallery.

This application was discussed having been deferred by the Committee at their meeting on Wednesday 9 June for a site visit. A site visit took place on Monday 9 August.

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee. He drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which acknowledged that the Westbourne Neighbourhood Plan had now passed referendum and carried significant weight. However, he explained that this change did not alter the report conclusions and as such the application was recommended for approval.

Mr Mew confirmed that the development was established through paragraph 80(e) of the National Planning Policy Framework 2021(NPPF) and was not contrary to the Neighbourhood Plan.

Mr Mew explained that para 80 of the NPPF 2021 had replaced para 79, the main difference was that innovative had been removed from the  previous requirement to be truly outstanding or innovative.. He confirmed that the development did still meet the policy requirements by being ‘truly outstanding’ and ‘significantly enhancing the local area’

Mr Mew highlighted the site location and proposed layout, including the site access and proposed biodiversity enhancements.

The Committee received the following representations;

Mr Richard Hancock – Parish Council Representative

Mr Roy Briscoe – Objector (upon completing his representation Mr Briscoe withdrew from the room)

Mr Jonathan Braddick – Supporter (statement read by Fiona Baker)

Mr Rob Hughes – Agent (statement read by Fiona Baker)

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

With regards to other similar comparable projects within the district; Mr Whitty informed the Committee that he was unaware of any other projects that have been developed under para 80(e), he did acknowledge that this was a unique project and the standards required for a development under this policy are exceptionally high.

On the matter of how sustainable the development is given that any occupant would be required to have their own transport; Mr Mew explained that para 80(e) can only be applied to development in an isolated location, therefore it is accepted that occupiers would be required to have their own transport.

On the matter of whether para 80 (e) superseded other policy; Mr Whitty confirmed that para 80(e) did not supersede other policy, he explained that through this policy the principle of the development is establish, but consideration is given to other policy and how it applies to the development.

On the matter of the land classification; Mr Whitty confirmed that the land was grade 3 agricultural land.

On the matter of the design of the proposed development; Mr Whitty explained that this is a subjective matter and what one person ‘likes’ differs significantly from what another individual ‘likes’, he advised the Committee that they were not been asked to consider whether they liked the design, but the whether it met the requirements set out in para 80(e). The design had been considered by an independent Design Review Panel,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91.

Glasshouse, harvesting, packaging and cold store facilities.Reservoirs and associated access and landscaping.

Defer for Section 106 then Permit

Mr Harris presented the report to the Committee. Mr Harris provided the Committee with a detailed background summary of the application and explained why it had been considered necessary for it to be brought back to Committee for consideration.

Mr Harris highlighted the site area and proposed layout of the development. He informed the Committee that for the majority the access road had been reduced in width from 6m to 4.1m, however, bends would 6m in width to allow for the safe passing of HGVs and a number of passing places would be provided to allow for HGVs to pass.

He explained that the location of the ‘spine’ road had been developed to accommodate and provide access for future development of the HDA.

Mr Harris outlined the proposed service yard and explained that the site was surrounded by a 6m high acoustic fence to limit noise disturbance from the site, he also informed the committee of the other noise mitigation measures including a restriction on HGV movements at certain times of day, no waiting on access road and the installation of a bund to protect properties to the north of the site.

Mr Harris drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet, which included amendments to Conditions 2, 3, 6, 9 and 20.

In addition Mr Harris provided the following verbal update;

·         Condition 6 had been amended to require submission of the details of the surface water disposal scheme prior to commencement of the development (excluding preliminary investigative activity). This reflected the trigger for this condition in the original application.

·         Condition 6(i) -  the word ‘public’ would be replaced with the word ‘existing’.

·         That the owners of both the site and much of the HDA, The Church Commissioners, had confirmed in writing that the spine road will be made available to other developers of land within the HDA and that they will endeavour to reach agreement with such parties, although that would need to be on normal commercial terms. Mr Harris confirmed that whilst the proposed clauses would need to be carefully considered, what was proposed seemed acceptable in principle and, consequently, that there was good reason to hope that the S106 would be agreed soon.

The Committee received the following representations;

Mr Richard Hopkins - Supporter

Mr Jonathan Zwinkels – Applicant

There were no questions, however, the Committee acknowledged the importance of the Horticultural industry to the local area.

In a vote the Committee agreed the recommendation to Defer for Section 106 then permit.

Recommendation; Defer for Section 106 then permit and subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

The Committee took a ten minute break.

Alterations to allowed appeal under reference 18/01173/FUL to include; change the use of the land and increase number of gypsy-traveller pitches from 3 to 4 including; utility buildings, hard standing, landscaping and amended access position.

Permit with S106

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee. She highlighted the site location and proposed layout of the application. Ms Stevens explained that the hatching marked on the site map represented the easement for an existing sewer.

Ms Stevens highlighted the combined bin and cycle storage units for each plot, which were installed with solar panels and also had an Electric Vehicle charging point. She also informed the Committee that the hardstanding around each plot had been reduced from the original application and there was an ecological enhancement scheme proposed around each plot.  

The Committee received no representations.

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

In response to a question regarding the collection of waste from the site, the Chairman used their discretion to invite the applicant to respond. The applicant confirmed that waste was collected by the authority on a weekly basis; he explained that bins were ‘put out’ on the roadside for collection

On the matter of a proposed embargo by the Parish Council regarding future development at the site; Ms Stevens explained that the current application had been amended from five plots to four plots. Any future development would be considered on its own merits as it came forward.

In a vote the Committee agreed the recommendation to Permit with S106.

Recommendation; Permit with S106 and subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

The Committee took a five minute break.

Construction of 8 no. dwellings, access, landscaping and associated works.

Defer for further information.

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee. She highlighted the site location and informed the Committee that the site was located between the settlements of Hermitage and Southbourne. Whilst the development site fell outside the settlement boundaries it was considered to be contiguous with the Hermitage settlement boundary, as the gardens of houses located within the boundary backed onto the development site.

Ms Stevens explained that as the housing supply policies within the Local Plan are out of date and the authority is unable to demonstrate a five year housing land supply, the application should be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that the application conflicts with the NPPF or, any impacts from the development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the NPPF. She informed Committee that during the application process the development scheme had been amended to address officer concerns of over development of the site and design of the buildings. Consideration has also been given to the adopted Interim Position Statement for the delivery of housing in the absence of an up to date five year supply of housing.

Officers consider that the proposed site is in a sustainable location having good access to local amenities, established rights of way and bus routes.

Ms Stevens explained that many of the trees surrounding the site were protected by TPO’s; although, 19 trees (that had been assessed by the Tree Officer) would be removed as part of the development, however a further 68 new trees would be planted. Ms Stevens also highlighted some of the other ecological proposals that would be installed as part of the development including bird and bat boxes.

Ms Stevens highlighted the wall to the south of the site and explained that this was classified as a heritage asset. The original proposal had sought the complete removal of the wall, however, in consultation with the Heritage Officer it had been agreed that part of the wall would be removed to provide a new access point with an inward curve which would be constructed from the original bricks removed. Ms Stevens informed the Committee that a condition is proposed to secure the details of the brickwork.

Ms Stevens informed the Committee that the proposed site would generate approximately 6.5kg nitrogen per year; a nitrate mitigation scheme had been developed and was considered acceptable.

The Committee received the following representations;

Cllr Amanda Tait – Parish Council Representative

Mr Christopher Bowring – Objector

Mr Paul White – Agent

Cllr Jonathan Brown – Ward Member (statement read by Fiona Baker)

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of where waste water generated from the site would be discharged; Ms Stevens informed the Committee that the waste would be discharged through the public network to the Thornham site. Mr Whitty confirmed that there was a headroom capacity of 427 at Thornham and as such it would be able to accommodate the additional waste. He acknowledged that this may change depending on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 94.

Weatherboard cladding to first floor side (west) and rear (south) elevations.

Permit

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee. She highlighted the site location to the Committee and drew their attention to the extension where the proposed cladding would be.

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the ecological benefits of the proposed cladding; Mr Whitty informed the Committee that he was unaware of any.

With regards to the permeability and increase in run off rain water; Mr Whitty advised that it was unlikely there would be any significant difference.

In a vote the Committee agreed the recommendation to Permit.

Recommendation; Permit and subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

Alterations to existing dwelling together with ground floor rear extension and side porch

Permit

This application was discussed having been deferred by the Committee at their meeting on Wednesday 9 June for a site visit. A site visit took place on Monday 9 August.

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included some addendums to the report and a further assessment.

Ms Stevens explained to the Committee that much of what was proposed within the application was subject to Permitted Development including the porch element to the side of the building. Ms Stevens informed the Committee that this was the fall-back position and as a material consideration carried a significant amount of weight. She explained the reason for the planning application being submitted was because when combined both the side and rear extension were greater than the width of the house.

The Committee received the following representations;

Mr Will Mclaren-Clark – Objector

There were no comments or questions from the Committee.

In a vote the Committee agreed the recommendation to Permit.

Recommendation; Permit and subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

Demolition of existing 3 no. outbuildings and erection of light industrial building (B1) comprising 2 no. units.

Permit

Ms Prichard presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included additional conditions relating to trees and hedgerows around the site. Ms Prichard also provided a verbal update on Condition 12 which had been amended and now required the developer to submit a plan showing the parking layout for approval prior to occupation.

Ms Prichard highlighted the site location and proposed development to the Committee. The site is located out of the settlement boundary and does run adjacent to the AONB.

The Committee received the following representations;

Cllr Timothy Firmston – Parish Council Representative

There were no further questions or comments from the Committee.

In a vote the Committee agreed the recommendation to Permit.

Recommendation; Permit and subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.

Cllr Fowler left the meeting at 2.05pm.

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

Ms Golding provided the Committee with an update on the following items;

·         Plot A, Land north of Premier Business Centre, Birdham; Ms Golding explained that the application had been refused, however, the applicant had now lodged an appeal against the refusal, the outcome of which had not been determined.

·         Hundredsteddle Farm; Ms Golding informed the Committee that the court had ruled in favour of the authority and the matter had been remitted to the Planning Inspectorate for redetermination, the authority had also been awarded their costs on the matter.

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

Mrs Archer presented the Schedule of Contraventions to the Committee. She informed the Committee that the site at Birdham had now been vacated by seven of the ten groups, with three groups remaining on site. Ms Archer explained that the authority’s Litigation Lawyer was in contact with the High Court for confirmation of their understanding of the matter before further action could be taken.

Ms Archer informed the Committee that the prosecution for the breach of condition notice at 3 West Ashling Road, was successful and the authority were awarded a sum of £3800 in costs.

On the matter of Land North West of Newbridge Farm; Ms Archer agreed to circulate an update outside of the meeting.

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

There were no late items.

There are no restricted items for consideration.

There were no part two items.