Erection of 143 dwellings, with associated access, parking, public open space, landscaping, extension to residential curtilages of existing properties along Oving Road and other associated works.
Mr Bushell presented the item to Members and clarified that the proposal was for an additional 43 dwellings to the 100 currently permitted. Mr Bushell drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included the deletion of the provision of an off-site pedestrian/cycleway link to Oving Road from the anticipated Section 106 agreement Heads of Terms, which would now be secured by condition only. There was also an amendment to Condition 17 to require the developer before the commencement of the development to enter into a Section 278 Agreement with West Sussex County Council to secure the off-site pedestrian/cycleway link to Oving Road.
The Committee received the following Speaker:
Mr Craig Burden – Agent
Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:
With regards to design, Mr Bushell explained that currently there was a permission granted on the site for a hundred dwellings and the design of the additional 43 dwellings would follow the approved scheme. On the matter of the north-west pedestrian/cycleway link, the majority of the three metre wide path would be on Highways England land, but there would also be some adjustments to the surrounding road network, principally associated with the Oving Road traffic light junction, hence the necessity for the involvement of the County Council. Mr Bushell added that at Condition 17 there was a requirement for consultation with Highways England. In relation to the emergency access at Condition 30, Mr Bushell explained that in an earlier iteration of the drawings there had been an acoustic fence shown across the frontage of Oving Road which had now been removed to ensure unobstructed access for emergency vehicles and the condition would be amended to indicate this requirement. With regards to internal roads, they would be built to adoptable standards, with a standard clause in the Section 106 regarding private roads and those for adoption, to ensure County Council had some control. Dog and litter bins would be looked at further, could be included in the landscape condition and would be managed by the estate management company. On the matter of foul drainage, Mr Bushell explained that there was a signed deed of easement between Redrow, Cala Homes, and Hanbury Properties who were the landowners at Shopwhyke Lakes to allow Redrow to discharge foul water from up to 143 dwellings to the Cala Homes pumping station on the Shopwyke Lakes site which had sufficient capacity for both developments. This was under the supervision of Southern Water, which would also be responsible as the statutory undertaker for foul water disposal between the Cala Homes pumping station and Tangmere pumping station.
On the matter of the clustering of a line of affordable housing on the eastern side of the site, Mr Bushell confirmed this had previously been approved for the 100 dwellings. This pattern was repeated on the western side, but the line was sufficiently broken with gaps, a mix of affordable and market properties, roads and parking, to ensure it was not a continuous line of affordable housing and it was therefore considered acceptable in terms of the pepper-potting approach.
Mr Bushell confirmed that an agreement was in place with the two major house–builders (Redrow and Cala), the Shopwyke Lakes land owner (Hanbury Properties) and Southern Water to ensure that the capacity of the Cala Homes pumping station was not exceeded and due to the long lead-in period in terms of occupations of dwellings there was sufficient time for the installation of the necessary foul drainage infrastructure to service the proposed development. Mr Bushell reminded the Committee that it was the responsibility of the statutory undertaker to determine the correct level of infrastructure to dispose of the waste.
With regards to the bus services, Mr Bushell responded that on the Shopwhyke Lakes spine road there was a bus service with associated bus stops which provided a more frequent service than the Compass bus service on Oving Road but it was difficult to establish new services in advance of dwellings being occupied as the bus companies were reluctant to create a provision without an understanding of the demand. The County Council as part of the Section 106 agreement required a contribution for bus stops and real time passenger information. On the matter of landscaping, Mr Bushell confirmed that the applicant’s fall-back position was for the hundred permitted dwellings, but as part of this scheme the five metre landscape buffer would be re-imposed including protection of the hedgerow adjacent to the A27. The details of the acoustic fence would be required by condition including planting to soften its appearance and Mr Bushell advised that the Council’s Environmental Health officers confirmed that subject to the usual requirements regarding fabric and glazing for buildings within a higher noise level environment, the site provided an acceptable living environment.
With regards to noise from the A27, Mr Bushell confirmed a detailed report had been submitted by the applicant, providing details of the glazing for the windows which would potentially have trickle vents or mechanical ventilation. Mr Bushell added that a balance was required between providing new housing and ensuring suitable amenity and an appropriate living environment, which he considered had been met. In addition to the three storey block of affordable housing flats located on the west boundary there would also be a further block of market flats to the north which was closer to the A27.
On the suggestion of a bund to part screen the acoustic fence, Mr Bushell concurred that the difficulty was utilising the area where the Sustainable Drainage System was located, as there could be an implication for surface water drainage. Mr Bushell assured the Committee that the details of the acoustic fence would be carefully considered for function and appearance. Mr Bushell confirmed the potential for a bund could be explored with applicant.
Miss Golding explained that discussions had been taking place regarding a revocation order for the hundred dwellings permission, as there was the potential for two planning applications to be in place which would then allow the applicant to adhere to different conditions from each of the permissions, which the Council would wish to avoid. Miss Golding advised therefore it may be necessary to amend the recommendation to defer for a revocation order, and a Section 106 and then permit. Mr Bushell responded that the applicant’s wish was to implement the new application should it be permitted rather than the permission for the hundred dwellings. Mr Bushell suggested that this matter could be dealt with by the wording of the Section 106 agreement stating that at the commencement of the 44th dwelling the applicant would need to decide whether to continue with the hundred dwellings scheme or implement the 143 dwelling scheme currently being considered by the Committee, which would avoid an overlap. This could further be discussed outside the Committee meeting. Miss Golding responded that it would be preferable to defer for a revocation order and leave this open by stating ‘if appropriate’ in the resolution and confirmed that there would be a clause to reflect this in the Section 106 agreement.
With regards to gas contamination, Mr Bushell confirmed that as part of the discharge of the pre-commencement conditions for the hundred dwelling scheme, the applicant had provided information in respect of gas contamination. The Environmental officer had re-imposed the relevant condition for the proposed extra 43 dwellings as a standard safeguard.
Mr Bushell confirmed that with regards to Condition 8, the ‘commencement’ of development would be defined in the Section 106 with the construction of the 44th dwelling as the trigger point. On the matter of the surface water swales, Mr Bushell responded that he believed they would not be lined which therefore would permit potential planting on the sloping embankment and there may be the possibility of moving the swales slightly to the east to allow for planting a tree line adjacent to the acoustic fence. Mr Bushell further advised that the detail of the acoustic fence was yet to be submitted and it may for example be a green wall. With regards to Condition 17, Redrow were working with Cala Homes on the Section 278 agreement for the north-west link, a consultant had been jointly appointed and a small amendment to the Section 278 drawing to accommodate the link would be submitted to the County Council as the most appropriate authority, with Highways England also having an input as to their requirements. On the matter of the onward movement of foul water from the Cala Homes pumping station, Mr Bushell reiterated that this was the responsibility of Southern Water.
On the matter of the position of the settlement boundary, Mr Bushell confirmed reference to the Local Plan review under draft policy AL3 which showed the settlement boundary for Chichester being revised to include the site. With regards to the bus patterns, Mr Bushell advised that these were more relevant to the Shopwhyke Lakes site as had been agreed. Mr Bushell confirmed that traffic emerging from the site would only be able to travel east towards Tangmere Road or divert through Shopwhyke Lakes on the spine road and then enter the A27, and only buses would be permitted to use the Oving Road/A27 junction. There would be onward connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists over the new bridge to be constructed over the A27and the toucan crossing on the A27 would remain.
In a vote Members agreed the application.
Recommendation to Permit to defer for a revocation order if appropriate, and a Section 106 agreement, agreed.
Members took a five minute break