Agenda item

Outline planning application for residential development of 70 dwellings (some matters reserved except for access).

Refuse against officer recommendation.

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She drew Members’ attention the update sheet and the following addendums to the report, which included further representations and amendments to proposed conditions

 

Ms Bell highlighted the site location to the Committee and explained that whilst the application site fell within the parish of West Wittering, it was located along the parish boundary with East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council, lying just 50m from the settlement boundary of East Wittering; whilst not contiguous with the settlement boundary officers had considered the application to be adjacent to and contiguous with the settlement of East Wittering.

 

Ms Bell informed the Committee that the site was identified in the HELAA.

 

Ms Bell explained that the application was an outline application with all matters reserved except for access, the issues of appearance, scale, landscape and layout were all for the consideration of future Reserved Matters applications. The application was seeking approval for 70 dwellings of which 30% would be affordable.

 

Ms Bell explained that due to the council not having a five year housing supply, and the Local Plan being out of date the Planning Authority is required to apply the ‘Tilted Balance’ methodology as set out in 11(b) of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

The Committee received the following representations;

 

Rob Hutton, West Wittering Parish Council – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

East Wittering Parish Council – the Chairman informed the Committee that she had used her discretion to allow EPC to address the Committee given the application site and its proximity to the Parish - Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

Mrs Lisa Clark – Objector – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

Mr George Thomas – Objector – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

Ms Juliet Johnson – Objector – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

Miss Katie Lamb – Agent – Statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker

 

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

 

On the matter of concerns regarding sewage; Ms Bell informed the Committee that Southern Water were the statutory consultee for this issue. Whilst acknowledging the concerns raised by the Committee, Ms Bell explained that as the statutory consultee Southern Water had raised no concerns and confirmed that they have the capacity to accommodate the increase in sewage from the site. In addition, Mr Whitty advised the Committee that if they were to refuse the application over concerns regarding sewage the authority would have no conclusive evidence to present in support of this claim at appeal, meaning that it would likely be afforded little weight by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

On the matter of flood risk and high water table; Ms Bell referred to a recent correspondence with the Environment Agency. The Environment Agency confirmed that since the Sandpiper Walk application there had been a significant amount of modelling and updating work completed during 2015. This had been done to better understand the risk of fluvial flooding. Following the completion of this work the application site was changed from being in a flood zone 2 (apart from one small area), to being in flood zone 1. The Environment Agency has confirmed that the information officers have referred to is the correct and most up to date information available.

 

On the matter of the HELAA; Ms Bell explained that this referred to the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) which was commissioned by Chichester District Council as part of the Local Plan Review. The SFRA was completed in 2018 and was used to inform the HELAA in 2020, the application site did form part of a larger site identified within the HELAA but was discounted due to climate change flood risk identified at the time. However, it has transpired that when the 2018 SFRA was completed it had not taken account of all the correct data sets from the Environment Agency. The SFRA was updated on the Council website during March 2021, this update has meant that the site is now included in the HELAA 2021.

 

On the matter of flooding; Mr Whitty confirmed that the amended 2018 SFRA was correct and was the only substantive piece of evidence (with regards to flooding) that the Committee could base their decision on. Mr Whitty advised that the Committee cannot make a decision based on future evidence that may become available.

 

On the matter of surface water; Ms Bell acknowledged that there was limited infiltration on the site and pooling did occur, and these were issues that the developer must address. A substantial attenuation pond is proposed as part of the development, which would flow into the current drainage network. With regard to the maintenance and management of the ditch network at the site Ms Bell confirmed that this would be secured through condition.

 

On the matter of education, Ms Bell explained that WSCC were the education authority and education contributions would be taken through CIL.

 

On the matter of LIDAR mapping; Ms Bell could not confirm if the land had been LIDAR mapped, however, she informed the Committee that there was a condition to address levels and confirmed that updates could be included within condition 4 to request survey information and impose a restriction of two storeys for the building height. With regards to finished floor levels Ms Bell explained that this was already addressed in condition 30 and advised that there was no need to also include it within condition 4.

 

 

On the matter of why the development had not being proposed on a nearby available brownfield site; Mr Whitty explained that whilst such sites could be promoted through the Local Plan and Neighbourhood plans, the Planning Authority cannot require that a developer considers one site instead of another. The existence of a brownfield site in close proximity to the proposed site is not a material consideration for the Committee.

 

On the matter of employment; Mr Whitty acknowledged concerns raised by the Committee, but advised that their concerns were based on speculation and could not be presented as tangible evidence at an appeal.

 

On the matter of the landscape study; Mr Whitty advised the Committee that whilst they should consider the officer report, they were free to make their own conclusions regarding the landscape impact of the development. 

 

On the matter of the five year housing supply; Mr Whitty informed the Committee that the authority currently has a 4.3 year housing supply. In terms of weight, this is a significant consideration that the Committee should take in to account when considering the application.

 

On the matter of Highways England; Mr Whitty acknowledged that the Highways England scheme did need updating; this was currently being addressed by the Planning Policy team. Mr Whitty, advised the Committee that for the purpose of the application being considered they must decide whether to disregard the scheme which would mean no financial contribution is collected, or they keep the scheme currently in place and require a contribution for improvements.

 

Mr Whitty acknowledged that the applicant had incorrectly stated that the application site was located within the boundaries of East Wittering and Bracklesham Parish Council; however, this had been amended and advised that this was not a material consideration.

 

On the matter of the site being identified as a development site within the Local Plan; Ms Bell explained that only strategic sites were considered as part of the Local Plan Review, and confirmed that this site was not allocated.

 

On the matter of sites being considered in isolation; Mr Whitty explained that sites were considered on their own individual merits, but stressed that they were not considered in isolation. Consultees and planning advisors do consider the cumulative impact of a proposed development against existing permissions, what they cannot take into account is the impact from potential application sites that  have no substantive permission for development.

 

On the matter of sub division of the site; Mr Whitty confirmed that the site had not been sub divided in a way which resulted in material harm to the planning considerations.

 

On the matter of a sequential test for flooding; Ms Bell explained that as the site was located in flood zone 1 there was no requirement for a sequential test for flooding to be undertaken.

 

With regards to Water Voles, Ms Bell confirmed that this matter was addressed through Condition 13.

 

With regards to the IPS; Ms Bell explained that the document is used to demonstrate to the Planning Inspectorate that the authority is taking its five year housing supply seriously; it is not designed to be used for strategic sites such as White House Farm which are addressed through the Local Plan Review.

 

On the matter of car clubs; Ms Bell informed the Committee that she would have to refer to WSCC for detail, however, from experience they only put forward schemes that are achievable.

 

Mr Whitty advised the Committee that as the Planning Authority it is their duty to consult with specialist agencies such as; Southern Water, Natural England and the Environment Agency, if the authority chooses to dismiss or go against the advice provided by statutory agents then it will have no evidence to substantiate such a decision and it will likely be dismissed at appeal. Whilst issues such as landscape character are more subjective and do not require consultation with a specialist authority, the Committee must still consider what evidence the authority would present at appeal. He advised that if the Committee were concerned about representations received from the statutory consultees they should look to defer the application to seek further clarification, as opposed to refuse.

 

Mr Briscoe proposed that the decision be deferred, this was not seconded.

 

*Mr Oakley left the meeting at 11.50am

 

Mr Barrett proposed (following advice from Mr Whitty on the grounds for refusal) that Committee refuse the application against officer recommendation, on the grounds of;

 

·       The unsustainable nature of the site; both on the Manhood Penisula and the periphery of settlement edge in respect of facilities.

·       That the density and character of the site will have a harmful impact on the existing settlement.

 

This was seconded by Cllr Potter

 

Following a vote the Committee agreed to refuse the application against officer recommendation.

 

Recommendation refuseagainst officer recommendation for the following reasons;

 

·       The unsustainable nature of the site; both on the Manhood Penisula and the periphery of settlement edge in respect of facilities.

·       That the density and character of the site will have a harmful impact on the existing settlement.

 

 

*Members took a ten minute break