Agenda item

Outline Application with all matters reserved apart from access for the erection of up to 73 dwellings, open space and associated works, Class E(g) business floorspace and Class E(a) retail floorspace.

Refuse.

Bushell presented the report to the Committee. He drew their attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included additional comments from; Birdham Parish Council, Selsey Town Council, and a further third-party comment; as well as a further reason for refusal.

 

Mr Bushell explained that the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee on 8 September 2021 for the five reasons recorded within the minutes of the meeting and set out within the report (page 64). With regards to the attendance of a representative from WSCC Highways Mr Bushell explained that unfortunately the WSCC representative had to offer apologies.

 

Mr Bushell outlined the current policy context and explained that the Council has now moved back to a Plan-led approach when considering applications. He explained that since the last Committee Meeting the Council had published its new Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS) Statement and could demonstrate a 5.3-year supply. As a result, the officer recommendation had changed from permit (at the September Committee) to refuse, full reasons for the change in the recommendation were detailed in full within the report. In summary, because the Council could demonstrate a 5YHLS the application of the Tilted Balance in favour of development is no longer required and the planning balance is tilted back towards a plan-led approach. Mr Bushell informed the Committee that this approach had been adopted by the Planning Inspector in dismissing a previous appeal on the same site in 2018.

 

Mr Bushell highlighted the site location to the Committee and explained that the site adjoined the Birdham settlement boundary and was 150m north of the Somerley conservation site. He informed the Committee that the entire site was located within Floodzone 1.

 

Mr Bushell outlined the three land parcels located within the development site, as well as the proposed access arrangements. He informed the Committee that the proposal was for a mix of 73 houses, flats, and some bungalows, which gives a net density of around 27 dwellings per hectare, along with an employment building and retail until. There would be a foul water pumping station, which would have a holding tank facility for up to 48 hours.

 

Mr Bushell confirmed that since the September Committee the applicant had included the 3m maintenance buffer required for drainage ditches on the north, west and south boundaries. However, as detailed in the Agenda Update Sheet, it had not been clarified whether the buffer achieved the required level space for maintenance purposes. The Drainage Engineer had been consulted and due to the lack of clarity on this issue it was not possible to confirm whether the overall quantum of development could be accommodated on the site and as such this matter was included as a further reason for refusal of the application.

 

Mr Bushell informed the Committee that foul water from the site would drain to the Sidlesham Waste Water Treatment works, via the Pinks Lane pumping station. Since September the Committee report had been updated to provide further information on foul drainage, Mr Bushell drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.20 of the report and introduced Mrs Mayall from Southern Water who was in attendance to help answer any questions regarding foul water drainage.

 

In summary Mr Bushell concluded that due to the Council now having a 5.3-year housing land supply, paragraph 11d of the NPPF no longer applied. The loss of Bellfield Nursery was considered contrary to the Birdham Neighbourhood Plan Policy 23. In revaluating the application since the September Committee in light of the revised five-year housing land supply position officers had no reason to reach a different decision to that reached by the Appeal Inspector in 2018 and therefore the recommendation was to refuse.

 

 

The Committee received representations from;

Cllr Timothy Firmston – Birdham Parish Council

Cllr Pieter Montyn – West Sussex County Council Member

Dr Carolyn Cobbold – Objector (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Dr Jill Sutcliffe – Objector (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Mr Paul Knappett – Applicant

 

Officers along with Mr Kevin Bown and Mr David Bowie from National Highways, and Mrs Charlotte Mayall from Southern Water responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

 

On the issue of infiltration into the sewage network; Mrs Mayall acknowledged the comments made. She confirmed that the infiltration was a recognised issue within the catchment and referred to the response provided as part of the Environmental Information request within the Committee report, which confirmed that an electroscan survey is due to be carried out on the network in January (subject to groundwater conditions). The investigation work in January will look at 6.5km of pipework in Birdham and a further 5km of pipe with the Itchenor catchment area.

 

Mrs Mayall informed the Committee of the sources of infiltration and, explained how it was affected seasonally by high groundwater within the winter months, as well as surface water after rainfall.

 

Mrs Mayall informed the Committee how planning applications are assessed at Southern Water and explained that applications are assessed by a team of Hydraulic Modellers who indicate in the response to the planning application whether there is available capacity within the network for the proposed development. With regards to this application, Mrs Mayall told the Committee that there was not currently capacity within the network.

 

Mrs Mayall explained that the Hydraulic Modelling does not consider infiltration when assessing applications, this is because the matters are separate issues that are not caused by development.

 

On the matter of surface water infiltration into the foul sewer network; Mrs Mayall agreed that this was a major issue, not just in Birdham but within many of Southern Water’s catchment area. She explained that it had been calculated that if surface water could be removed from the foul network then there would be a reduction of around 40% in pollution incidents, for example through CSO spills. Sustainable drainage is the most effective way forward to help mitigate the issue of surface water entering the network.

 

On the matter of capacity on the A27 and developing a mitigating scheme; Mr Bown informed Committee that several schemes had been designed and costed, with developer contributions being collected, these had been brought forward through the Adopted Local Plan. He confirmed that from the work undertaken on the emerging Local Plan, National Highways were content to seek developer contributions towards the originally planned schemes.

 

With regards to the Roads Investment Strategy (RIS) Pipeline Study; Mr Bown confirmed that National Highways, CDC and WSCC were engaged in the study and providing feedback as to what should be looked at and what needs should be considered. Mr Bown cautioned that there is a balance between the expectations set in the emerging Local Plan and what is brought forward through RIS. However, he assured the Committee that as with both RIS 1 and RIS 2 if a more suitable scheme is brought forward through RIS 3 then developer contributions could be used towards that scheme.

 

Mr Bown informed the Committee that National Highways, at this time, are content to continue following the current SPD, which applies to seeking financial contributions for all sites over 10 dwellings.

 

With regards to when mitigation measures may be required, Mr Bown, explained that from the evidence gathered to date the junctions at Bognor and Fishbourne roundabouts will require improvements by 2026.

 

On the issue of highway safety on the A27; Mr Bowie acknowledged that development would increase congestion on the network, however, this does not mean that there will be an adverse impact in terms of safety. He explained that monitoring the impact to safety on the network was done by reviewing historical evidence and undertaking annual checks. Mr Bowie referred to the Stockbridge Roundabout (which this development would impact), he informed the Committee that as a roundabout it had a very good safety record, particularly when compared to the Bognor or Fishbourne roundabouts. Presently, there are approximately two personal injury accidents a year occurring at Stockbridge roundabout, and it is unlikely that the proposed development would impact the junction enough to change the safety risk.

 

On the matter of how much assurance can be given to the foul drainage works being completed; Mr Whitty advised the Committee that they had received information from Southern Water, who as the statutory provider had confirmed that they were aware of the issue and were undertaking works to try and resolve the matter.

 

On the issue of Clappers Lane and how it differed from this application; Mr Whitty explained the main difference was that Southern Water at the time had not developed a project plan to deal with the issue of infiltration and were unable to advise when they would be in a position to address the problem, therefore there was a much greater level of uncertainty (which was supported by Southern Water) and as a consequence it was included as a reason for refusal in the Clappers Lane application. 

 

On the matter of the surface water drainage ditches; Mr Bushell advised the Committee that given there is an ongoing issue with high ground water levels in the area, any permission granted would need to safeguard access to the ditches to ensure they could be suitably maintained. From the information received officers felt there was not enough detail to provide the necessary assurance.

 

With regards to the width of the buffer; Mr Bushell explained that the 3m measurement was taken from the rear of the garden fence (of the proposed dwellings) to the top edge of the ditch. The width is essential as it must be able to accommodate the type of vehicle required to maintain the ditches. In addition, the provision of the 3m buffer will have an impact upon the quantum of development and the proposed number of dwellings would need to be reduced to accommodate the buffer.

 

With regards to landscaping, Mr Bushell explained that the site was already well screened, particularly on the south and west boundaries and this would provide satisfactory screening to the site and proposed development (as acknowledged by the Planning Inspector at the Appeal).

 

On the matter of how much of the perimeter landscaping was in the applicant’s control; Mr Bushell reminded the Committee that landscaping was a Reserved Matter and did not form part of the consideration for this application.

 

On the matter of local highways, Mr Bushell drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 6.11 (page 74 of the report) which set out the additional comments received from WSCC Highways following the September Committee Meeting.

 

On the issue of the investigation work being undertaken by Southern Water; Mrs Mayall clarified that the electroscanning was the starting point and would provide a picture of what is going on underground. From that a plan will be developed, Mrs Mayall stressed that Southern Water were committed to addressing the issues within the area, however, she was unable to say how long any remedial work would take.

 

With regards to developer contributions collected by National Highways, Mr Bown informed the Committee that the Council’s SPD does allow for developer contributions to be taken on all developments over 10 dwellings. He explained that if this application were to be permitted it would generate a contribution of around £230,000.

 

With regards to the impact on capacity, Mr Bown explained that designs are developed with a theoretical impact on capacity, considering the requirements of the Local Plan, as well as headroom to accommodate potential windfall sites.

 

On the issue of accident investigation, Mr Bowie informed the Committee that National Highways are required to investigate all accidents that occur on their network. These are reviewed and fed into a prioritisation programme.

 

On the matter of a response to the education concerns; Mr Bushell drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 6.14 (page 75) which confirmed that there was capacity to accommodate any required school places if the development were permitted.

 

On the issue of biodiversity loss being included as a reason for refusal; Mr Bushell advised that this would not be possible as it would be difficult to defend at appeal. The Environment Bill had only received Royal Assent on 9 November and there was still a requirement for secondary legislation before Biodiversity Net Gain was expected to be an issue that the Council would need to consider requiring from developments.  This was not anticipated until winter 2023.

 

With regards to other issues being considered by National Highways; Mr Bown assured the Committee that National Highways do take into consideration factors such as road congestion alongside safety. Current evidence demonstrates that congestion along the A27 does not require any immediate action, however, should the situation change measures such as Grampion conditions can be applied.

 

Following the debate Mr Barrett proposed the following reasons for inclusion within the Committee refusal;

 

1)    The Committee is concerned that it does not have enough information at this time to understand the available capacity in the waste water network.

 

2)    The Committee are concerned that with this application the known employment space on the site is being replaced with only potential employment space. As a point of note, Mr Whitty advised the Committee against this proposal due to lack of evidence.

 

On the advice of Ms Golding, the proposals were voted on separately.

 

The Committee moved to vote on the second of Mr Barrett’s proposals, this did not receive a seconder and was dismissed.

 

The Committee moved to vote on the first of Mr Barrett’s proposals, Mr Oakley seconded this proposal. Following a vote, the committee agreed to include the additional foul water drainage reason for refusal;

 

 

In a vote the Committee agreed to the report recommendation to refuse.

 

Recommendation; refuse for the reasons listed in the report plus the additional reasons listed below and agreed by the Committee.

 

*Members took a ten-minute break

*Mr McAra left the meeting at 12pm.