Agenda item

SB/20/02297/FUL; Land North West Of 139 Main Road Southbourne Hampshire (approximate start time 12.05pm)

Construction of 8 no. dwellings, access, landscaping and associated works.


Defer for S106 then Permit.


Mrs Stevens presented the report to the Committee, and drew the Committee’s attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an addendum to the report in respect of the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan, and an addendum to the Decided Plans table.


Mrs Stevens highlighted the proposed layout of the development and its site location. She informed the Committee that in response to members concerns regarding the ongoing maintenance and access to the ditch and trees located around the perimeter of the development site; the applicant has proposed additional access points which will provide a suitable entry to the site for future maintenance. In addition, the applicant has recently used a mini digger to undertake maintenance work on the surrounding ditch network.


Updates to the report since the last Committee hearing in August 2021 when the application was deferred for further information could be identified by the bold typesetting in the report.


The Committee received representations from;


Cllr Amanda Tait – Southbourne Parish Council

Mr C Bowring - Objector

Mr Paul White – Agent


Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;


On the matter of what weights could be afforded to the emerging Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan and the existing Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan; Mr Whitty explained that the existing Neighbourhood Plan is afforded the same weight as Chichester District’s own existing plan. With regards to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan Mr Whitty acknowledged that as it enters Regulation 16 it does gather more weight, but until it has gone through inspection only a limited amount of weight can be afforded to it. He advised the Committee that there is also no significant impact between the emerging Neighbourhood Plan and the Interim Policy Statement (IPS), as there is not a five year housing land supply.


In response to concern regarding the number of dwellings; Mr Whitty informed the Committee that the original application had sought permission for nine dwellings; however; taking into consideration constraints around the site it was advised that the eight dwellings being applied were the maximum that the site could accommodate.


With regards to the omission of the standard condition regarding road construction; Mrs Stevens agreed that this could be included as an additional condition.


On the matter of planning policy and how the application differed from agenda item 6; Mrs Stevens explained that there were a number of differences between the applications in terms of policy consideration. One of the most significant differences is that the Neighbourhood Plan in the earlier application had been adopted and did allow for the provision of ‘windfall’ sites. In addition, the ‘strategic gap’ between Hermitage and Southbourne was not recognised in the existing Local Plan, Mrs Stevens acknowledged that it had been identified in previous Local Plans, but it had not been carried forward as part of the 2015 Local Plan. She advised that the Committee must apply the tilted balance in their decision making and consider the current five year housing land supply, and whether the proposed development is likely to cause any significant demonstrable damage.


On the matter of ditch maintenance; Mrs Stevens confirmed that officers had seen evidence that the work had been undertaken and that the site could be accessed from the proposed access points. Due to the nature of the site there was a limit to the size of vehicle that could enter the site. Mrs Stevens also confirmed that the future maintenance of the ditches and trees surrounding the site were all the responsibility of the same management company, and would not be the responsibility of any individual home owner.


With regards to the maintenance of the culvert to the south of the site; Mrs Stevens agreed that this could be highlighted through an additional informative. She confirmed that the ditch was already culverted and there were no proposed changes to the network as a result of the application.


In a vote the Committee agreed to the report recommendation to defer for S106 then permit


Recommendation; defer for S106 then permit; subject to the conditions (with the additional condition regarding road construction) and informatives set out in the report.




Supporting documents: