All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 21 dwellings with associated vehicular access, parking and landscaping, pursuant to permission CC/98/02043/OUT.
Ms Thatcher presented the report to the Committee. She drew attention to the Agenda Update which included; a correction to the report, further representations, and amendments to both the plans and proposed conditions.
Ms Thatcher explained that an application for 21 dwellings on the site had been approved in 1998. However, due to the passage of time and the failure to complete the S106 agreement the permission had lapsed. Negotiations on the S106 had continued and in order to resolve the situation the application was altered from ‘Full’ to ‘Outline’ with all matters reserved. The Outline application had been approved at Committee in 2018; the Reserved Matters had been received in 2020 and was within the agreed time limits.
She explained that the Committee were being asked to consider the Reserved Matters of layout, scale, appearance, access and layout in respect of the 21 dwellings approved through the Outline planning permission.
Ms Thatcher highlighted the site location to the Committee and the proposed layout and elevations. She explained that the affordable homes would be located in plots 20 and 21. She confirmed that the entire location was located within Flood Zone 1.
The Committee received the following representations;
Mrs Linda Bye – Objector (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)
Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;
For the purpose of clarity Mr Whitty reiterated the site history and explained that an application had been submitted 23 years previously; however, the S106 agreement had never been signed, and the application not determined. Two years ago the applicant changed the application to an Outline planning application for 21 dwellings which had been considered and approved by the Planning Committee. What the Committee were being asked to decide on was the Reserved Matters (REM) of layout, appearance, scale and access for the approved Outline application.
On the matter of the Centurion Way link Mr Whitty confirmed that this would be open to public access.
On the matter of noise disturbance, particularly on Bank Holidays and Sundays; Ms Thatcher confirmed that the site working hours were included under Condition 25 of the Outline planning permission, which restricts the hours of construction from 7.30am – 6pm Mondays to Fridays; 8am – 1pm on Saturdays and no working on Sundays or Public Holidays. In addition, Ms Thatcher explained the difference between the condition included within the Outline application and the REM application. She informed the Committee that the condition attached to the Outline application related to construction hours on site, whereas condition 8 in the REM application referred specifically to protect against noise from development. She confirmed that the condition set out in the Outline application would take precedent over the condition included within the REM application.
With regards to the Construction and Environmental Management Plan, Ms Thatcher confirmed that this was included within the Outline application.
With regards to the proximity of the site to a scheduled ancient monument, Ms Thatcher explained that there was a monument located to the south of the site, but this was far enough away for it not to be impacted by the development.
With regards to archaeological constraints; Ms Thatcher confirmed that this was included within the conditions attached to the Outline permission.
In response to concerns raised regarding earthworks and site levels, Ms Thatcher, acknowledged that the site was a challenging engineering project; however, it was for the developer to demonstrate how they proposed to manage and undertake this work in line with the proposed conditions.
With regards to concerns raised regarding newts and biodiversity; Ms Thatcher informed the Committee that there was a biodiversity plan; Condition 2 in the report requires that an ecological watching brief is completed before any development commences, further biodiversity conditions are also attached to the Outline permission. In addition, she confirmed that no trees are proposed to be removed as part of the development.
With regards to nitrate mitigation; Mr Whitty acknowledged concerns regarding potential impact to the Chichester Harbour, however, due to the Outline application being granted permission prior to the Nitrate Mitigation Policy being implemented it could not be applied to this Reserved Matters application.
With regards to recycling storage facilities; Mr Whitty confirmed that this was included within the conditions.
With regards to the future management of the site; Mr Whitty informed the Committee that there was no condition relating to the future management of the site. He explained that it was his understanding the future management of the site had been secured through S106, but agreed that he was happy for a condition to be included if, following officer investigation this is not the case.
With regards to site levels and the matter of overlooking; Ms Thatcher explained that strategic planting was proposed along the southern border, including new trees and native hedging. She highlighted that the flank elevation on number 15 had been left blank to prevent any direct views to Balboa.
On the matter of ground stability; Mr Whitty clarified that structural stability and potential slippage was a matter that would be consider by building regulations where it related to buildings.
On the matter of the Highways England contribution; Mr Whitty explained that had this been required, it would have been secured at the Outline application and was not relevant to this Reserved Matters application.
On the matter of the pond; Mr Whitty confirmed that the pond was addressed through the site drainage strategy and secured through conditions. Officer preference was that the pond is not lined due to the disruption it would cause to the established wildlife, but this would be determined through further investigation work.
Mr Whitty agreed that a condition could be included to ensure the carriageway was capable of taking the weight of refuse vehicles and HGV.
On the matter of Condition 17 and 18 including the word cycleway; Mr Whitty agreed that phrasing in both conditions 17 and 18 could be amended from just ‘footway’ to ‘footway and cycleway’. He informed the Committee that the phrasing in the S106 agreement did refer to a footway and cycleway.
On the matter of unauthorised vehicular access; Mr Whitty acknowledged concerns, but informed the Committee that it was officer opinion that due to the varying site levels this was very unlikely. However, he agreed that if the Committee did want to safeguard against such access a condition could be included.
With regards to specifying what mitigation should be used to prevent unauthorised access, Mr Whitty agreed that the condition could be worded to ensure that appropriate measures are taken to ensure access to all permitted users, such as bollards.
On the matter of cycle parking; Mr Whitty confirmed that this was included as part of the Outline application.
On the matter of trees located around the site and safeguarding them for future applications to have them removed; Mr Whitty explained that the dwelling located to the north of the site was closest in proximity to trees, which were located approximately 10m from the dwelling. Officers felt that there was enough room between developments and the trees to safeguard against any future applications for felling or lopping.
Mr Whitty confirmed that the trees on the western boundary were covered by a group TPO.
With regards to concerns over surface water drainage; Ms Thatcher informed the Committee that condition 23 of the Outline application and the S106 agreement secured the SUDs on the site.
With regards to estate roads being adopted by the highway authority; Mr Whitty informed the Committee that it was unlikely that the roads would be adopted and it would be the responsibility of residents to ensure future maintenance.
With regards to requesting that the development of the cyclepath is brought forward, i.e. before the 12th house has been completed; Mr Whitty explained that it was not possible as this had already been agreed and secured as part of the S106 agreement. In a vote the Committee agree the recommendation to permit.
Recommendation, PERMIT subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report; and additional and amended conditions and informatives agreed by the committee.
Additional or Amended conditions;
Additional Condition - To include a condition for the Estate Management (if this has is not secured through the S106 agreement)
Additional Condition – To include a condition requiring details of road construction
Additional Condition – To prevent unauthorised motor access via the link onto the Centurion Way, but to ensure that measures taken do not hinder cycle movements.
Amendment to conditions 17 & 18 – to include the word cycleway