Agenda item

CC/20/03108/REM Land West Of Centurion Way And West Of Old Broyle Road, Chichester

All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 65 residential dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, informal open space and associated works on Phase 6.H, pursuant to permission 14/04301/OUT.





Mr Harris presented the item to Members, provided a verbal update regarding a change to Condition 3 to reflect a recent revision and drew Members’ attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included amendments to two conditions relating to approved plans and tree protection.


The Committee received the following speaker:


Rob Collett – Applicant (statement read)


Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:


With regards to the green space (pocket park) between the parcel and adjacent parcel, Mr Harris explained that the routing of the spine road had already been permitted under phase one, and that re-routing the access to the south of the park would not be possible as it would involve land that was outside of the Phase 1 application site. The path shown along the southern side of the park was a cycleway with the aim of improving facilities for cyclists, and contributing to what was intended to be a pedestrian friendly area. 


On the matter of issues which had occurred with the applicant on sites elsewhere in the District in relation to drainage and lighting problems for existing residents and negative impact on wildlife during construction work, Mr Whitty responded that although this should not be referenced with regards to this application, he was aware of the issues and that developers use different contractors for different sites.  The Council’s enforcement officers were involved in such matters across the whole of the site under discussion and would keep the works in progress under review in relation to any problems which may occur. 


With regards to the comments that Newlands Lane may have been a lost opportunity at outline stage in terms of it not being identified as a cycleway at that stage, Mr Harris responded that he did not consider this to be the case.  In relation to the outline application for phase one, there was unlikely to be a significant volume of cycle traffic and it would not have been justified.  On the matter of future vehicular traffic on Newlands Lane and phase two, Mr Harris advised this had not been shown on part of any approved parameter plan to date, but could be considered in the future if required.  In regards to unauthorised vehicle access where the cycle link emerged onto Newlands Lane, it would cross a deep drainage ditch and therefore this would prevent unauthorised access.  Mr Harris explained that Condition 5 included the requirement of details of the transition between the parcel and Newlands Lane which was likely to require bollards, and an informative could be added with regards to the expectation of such installation.  Mr Harris confirmed that surface water drainage was to be dealt with subsequently under the outline conditions, and therefore the details were not yet known.  Mr Harris added that he understood the location did not drain well due to ground conditions and therefore that a significant proportion of drainage would be directly into the wider network, designed at the outset for this eventuality, although the surface drainage had been better than expected in terms of the detailed drainage schemes that had been approved for parcels thus far.  The drainage would be reviewed by the Council’s drainage engineer officer when details were submitted.  Mr Harris further explained that silting issues with paved areas and the routine maintenance would be dealt with the under the relevant conditions and common areas would in future be maintained by the Management Company.


With regards to where the cycleway emerged onto Newlands Lane, Mr Harris agreed this was a valid point but there was a difficulty in both stopping unauthorised vehicles and facilitating other users, and this matter would be considered carefully when the relevant condition was discharged.  County Council Highway officer Mr Shaw did not want staggered barriers as this caused a hindrance for some users, but measures would be required in order to slow cyclists where they emerged onto Newlands Lane. 


Mr Harris confirmed that the protection of the chalk stream was being regularly monitored by enforcement officers, and the route of the chalk steam was protected under the conditions in terms of the environmental construction management plan.  Mr Harris further confirmed that there had been some issues in relation to the chalk stream and some reinstatements works would take place and replanting to a small area in the south east corner of the parcel.  Significant planting would take place in the southern open space and this would include meadow grass.  Mr Harris added that with regards to Newlands Lane, there was no intention for the Country Park to be accessed by vehicles from this road but only by pedestrians and signage had been positioned to remind people that the private road should not be accessed by vehicles unless they were residents.  Mr Harris further responded that the aspirations of a bridleway along to Salthill Road were noted, but the developers only had control up to Salthill Lodge.


On the matter of building control Mr Whitty confirmed that the Council only had enforcement control.  The developers had appointed approved inspectors for building control purposes and consequently, this was not within the Council’s control.


With regards to parking issues, Mr Harris advised that the Country Park was intended as an attractive location but there had not been a plan in this part of the site for a car park, although there was a car park located off Old Broyle Road.  Should a problem arise, the County Council would need to monitor and put any necessary measures in place.


With regards to Condition 5, Mr Harris confirmed that this could be amended to make specific reference to measures to prevent unauthorised access across the parcel.  On the matter of the roof run-off, this would be dealt under the conditions on the outline application and had been included within the calculations considered by the drainage engineer officer.  Mr Harris agreed that in relation to the maintenance of the shared surface areas, there would be a reliance on compliance with the plans and subsequent conditions when discharged.


In relation to the chalk stream, Mr Harris confirmed that the whole drainage strategy had been developed around protecting the chalk stream.  In the south east corner, drainage works had caused some short-term and localised issues, which were being resolved and local Members had been kept updated on this matter.


In a vote Members agreed the recommendation to permit.


Recommendation to Permit agreed.


Members took a ten minute break.


Supporting documents: