Agenda item

CC/21/01391/FUL St James Industrial Estate Westhampnett Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 7JU (approximate start time 12.05pm)

Redevelopment of the existing industrial estate, including demolition of the existing buildings. The scheme provides approximately 4448m2 (47877ft) of lettable industrial space all under B1(b), B1(c) and B8 use classes with 5 no. replacement buildings. - Variation of Condition 1 of planning permission CC/20/01914/FUL - changes to Block 1 from one single large unit into 10 smaller units and associated works.




Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She drew their attention to the update sheet which set out an amended description to the development and an amendment to condition 37.


In addition, Ms Bell informed the Committee that a late update had been received from the Environment Strategy Officers; who had confirmed that they had no objections to the application, subject to the proposed conditions included in the report.


Ms Bell explained that the application is a Section 73 application and is seeking to vary condition 1of planning permission CC/20/01914/FUL which had been approved by the Planning Committee in November 2020. The application specifically seeks to change Block 1 from one single large unit into 10 smaller units and associated works. The variation only applies to Block 1; Blocks 2, 3, 4 and 5 would remain unchanged from the previous application.


Ms Bell highlighted the proposed elevations to the Committee and explained that the proposed elevations would be lower than that which had been approved in the original application.


There were no representations.


Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;


With regards to the proposed height of the development; Mr Whitty highlighted that the original building height; which had been deemed acceptable and subsequently approved by the Committee; was greater than what was being proposed, therefore it was difficult to identify what harm was being cause in lowering the height. He advised that the Committee should not seek to restrict development unless harm can be identified. In addition, Ms Bell informed the Committee that officers had spoken to the applicant regarding the proposed height of the building; they had informed them that the units had been designed for ‘start-up’ businesses or businesses which were looking to establish a presence in Chichester. The height of the development is important for a number of reasons including the stacking and delivery of shipments, or for the installation of a mezzanine. The applicant had also informed officers that the eaves height was comparable and in-line with other similar developments in the area.


On the matter of the north east wall; Mr Whitty explained to the Committee that this was an existing wall and as such the Committee were not able to request the applicant make any changes to it.


With regards to the appearance of the development; Mr Whitty explained that whilst the development was utilitarian in its design, it was an industrial development and in keeping with other similar developments in the surrounding area. He advised that if the Committee are concerned that the application does cause potential harm to the public realm, then they delegate to officers to allow for a potentially more attractive design to be negotiated, however, he reiterated that this was an industrial unit that was in keeping with local style and design. 


With regards to the north elevation; Ms Bell acknowledged members comments regarding the appearance. She explained that the palette is considered to be of contemporary style, with a double pitch roof which does offer more variation to the design than put forward in the original application.


On the matter of traffic generation; Ms Bell drew the Committees attention to paragraph 8.11 of the report which sets out that it has been identified the proposed variation will generate a net increase of 66 trips per day, the Highway Authority have acknowledged the increase and raised no objection.


Ms Bell confirmed that there was no widening on the North East side of the development entrance.


On the matter of sustainable design; Ms Bell drew Members attention to Condition 17, which conditioned that no development shall commence above ground level until a strategy detailing the sustainable design and construction of new building has been approved. In addition, Mr Whitty explained that the roof had been orientated in the proposed way so as to cause minimum impact to neighbouring properties.


In a vote the Committee agree the recommendation to permit.


Recommendation, PERMIT subject to the conditions and informatives listed in the report.



*Cllr Plowman left the meeting at 12.50

*Cllr Oakley left the meeting at 12.50

Supporting documents: