Agenda item

Hybrid planning application comprising of full planning permission for 66 dwellings and associated development, including landscape, highways and parking, and outline planning permission with all matters reserved except access for open space (including informal amenity open space, bandstand and community orchard) and provision of new 3.5m wide footway/cycleway link to West Sussex Alternative Provisions College with reconfiguration of existing car parking spaces and relocation of storage facility

Defer for further information.

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She drew the Committee’s attention to the agenda update sheet which included amendments to conditions 10 and 11; an amendment to paragraph 3.14 of the report and some additional information from the applicant regarding biodiversity net gain.

Ms Bell highlighted the site location and explained that the application was a hybrid application with full planning permission being sought for 66 dwellings and associated infrastructure; including parking; the ecological mitigation land; the SUDs and play area. Outline permission is being sought for the open space, cycle link and reconfiguration of the school parking. Ms Bell explained the reason parts of the application were in outline was due to the fact that at the time of submission, WSCC and North Mundham Parish Council had not finalised detailed layout proposal for those elements in outline.

Ms Bell informed the Committee that the proposed vehicular access utilised the existing internal roads and access point that were granted through the Lowlands Nursery site, which was considered by Committee in December 2020.

Ms Bell highlighted the public right of way which runs along the southern boundary of the application site and connects North Mundham with Hunston.

She explained that the application site is stretched across two parishes, with two thirds of the application site (including all the proposed housing) falling within North Mundham Parish Council and the other within Hunston Parish Council.

The proposed housing mix for the site is 70% market value housing and 30% affordable housing, including 14 rented properties and 6 shared ownership properties. The majority of the developments would be two storey dwellings; apart from six properties located in the southern area of the site which will be single storey. The site layout and design have taken into account nearby listed buildings including St Stephen’s Church.

Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to the proposed area of ecological mitigation which included a reptile receptor area. 

Ms Bell highlighted the sustainability measures proposed including PV panels on 17 dwellings and air source heat pumps in all properties. The proposed measures equate to around a 42% improvement above Building regulations on heating and a further 10% from renewable energy.

Ms Bell explained that the open space (not including the SUDs) was expected to be taken over by North Mundham Parish Council, with discussions currently taken place to secure a maintenance contribution for the next 15 years.

The Committee received the following representations;

·         Mr Timothy Russell – North Mundham Parish Council Representative

·         Ms Amanda Sutton – Agent

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the condition for the drainage ditch line; Ms Bell agreed to review the condition to ensure that the moat is adequately maintained.

With regards to the Open Space to the east and why it could not be included within the full planning permission; Ms Bell explained that at the time of submission the application included a community facility provision, where the details were unknown at the time of submission. The community facility had subsequently been withdrawn however it was not deemed appropriate to include the open space within the full part of the application as detailed site information such as the landscaping layout were still not yet available; it would have also generated an amended application fee.

With regards to the inclusion of conditions for the construction of estate roads and bin storage, Ms Bell agreed that these could be included.

On the matter of a trigger point for when the ‘hoggin’ on the Public Right of Way (PRoW) would be installed; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 30 which stated that before the first occupancy of any dwelling details of the PRoW upgrade must be approved, she agreed that for clarity the submission of a timetable of implementation could also be included within the condition.

On the issue of foul drainage; Ms Bell advised the Committee that the current dry weather flows at Pagham Waste Water Treatment Works showed a capacity for 734 dwellings. However, she explained that the set up at Pagham is slightly more complicated as it is used to service development in both Arun District and Chichester District. The Planning Policy team are currently working with Southern Water to agree a Statement of Common Ground and the information they have provided regarding headroom capacity has been included within the evidence base for the Local Plan, and was used by officers in preparing the committee report. Southern Water have provided a trajectory for Pagham which shows that there are an additional 920 dwellings expected to be connected to the treatment works between 2020 and 2036, however, the information provided does not state how this figure was expected to be split between Arun and Chichester. Ms Bell explained that the current headroom capacity of 734 is not expected to be exceeded until 2025/26 and confirmed that Southern Water is currently developing a growth scheme to update the Pagham Treatment works to address the capacity issues. In addition, Ms Bell explained that if there were any capacity issues during construction the developer had agreed to provide tankers during the interim.

With regards to the capacity at both North Mundham School and the Free School; Ms Bell informed the Committee that whilst she had not been able to speak with WSCC education officers, WSCC highways had commented that if children did need to be moved to another school it would not have a detrimental impact on the highway. The highways officer had also noted that there were some significant sustainability benefits being brought forward by the development including the cycleway. In addition, there were developer contributions coming forward to help address any capacity issues at the local schools.

On the matter of First Homes; Mr Whitty explained that whilst the policy will require 25% of affordable housing to be First Homes, it will only be applicable on applications made after 28 December 2021 or; for applications which had been subject to significant pre app advice there was a later date of March 2022. Therefore it did not apply to this application.

On the issue of the A27 and the recent announcement that the scheme of mitigation is no longer deliverable; Mr Whitty advised that officers would consult with National Highways to confirm their comments following the announcement made on July 29 2021 at the All Member Briefing session. However, Mr Whitty counselled the Committee that the application must be considered on its own merits and it is a matter for the Committee to determine whether they feel that the cumulative impact on the A27 does create a significant impact that will result in adverse consequences and tip the tilted balance away from permitting the development.

In response to a question regarding which floodzone the Pagham Waste Water Treatment Works was located in; Mr Whitty answered that he was unaware of what flood zone it was located in, however, he reminded the Committee the issue of waste water is the responsibility of Southern Water and not relevant to the discussion.

On the matter of the access road onto the site; Ms Bell confirmed that there was only one vehicular access road onto the site; this had been approved by WSCC Highways who were satisfied with the proposal and have raised no objection to the application.

With regards to thee Hunston Copse; Ms Bell confirmed that it was not in the ownership of the developers.

Following the debate Mr Oakley proposed that the Committee defer the application so that further information could be provided to address concerns raised by Committee members during the debate. In particular further evidence and attendance at Committee is requested from;

·         National Highways (formally Highways England) regarding the A27 and their recent announcement that the scheme of mitigation is undeliverable;

·         WSCC Education and the lack of school places with the area, including a response to their comment on the Hunston Neighbourhood Plan;

·         WSCC Highways and the impact from the proposed development on surrounding roads, including a response to their comments on Hunston NP and why this application has a different response.

In a vote the Committee agreed the recommendation to defer for further information

Recommendation to defer for further information from;

·         The National Highways (formally Highways England) regarding the A27, to explain its assessment of individual and cumulative impact of proposed development  on A27 and explain any mitigation proposals;

·         WSCC Education and the lack of school places with the area, including a response to their comment on the Hunston Neighbourhood Plan;

·         WSCC Highways and the impact from the proposed development on surrounding roads, including a response to their comments on Hudson NP and why this application has a different response.

*Members took a half hour break for lunch

*Mr McAra and Mr Potter left the meeting at 1.20pm