Agenda item

Creation of 4 no. parking spaces, dropped kerb, boundary treatment and landscaping

Refuse; against officer recommendation.

Mr Mew presented the report to the Committee. By way of verbal update, he explained that the paragraph numbering for sections 7 and 6 within the report were incorrect, he confirmed that the content included was correct.

He also confirmed that the site was not located within the settlement boundary, as stated in paragraph 8.2 and in the table at paragraph 5 and was located outside the settlement boundary as set out in paragraph 2.1 of the report.

Mr Mew informed the Committee that the application was for the creation of four parking spaces at the front of Black Boy Court and associated works. He highlighted the site location and where the proposed works would be located.

The site is adjacent to the A259 and has been reviewed by WSCC Highways who have raised no objections.

He highlighted the elevations and proposed landscaping, including a low-level flint wall.

Mr Mew informed the Committee that the site was within a conservation area and adjacent to a Grade 2 listed building, however, he explained that the low wall which could be seen in the presentation was not historic and planning permission was not required for its removal.

The Committee received representations from;

Mrs Carter – Applicant

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the existing flint wall; Mr Mew drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.6 of the report. He explained even though the site was within a Conservation Area no permission was required for the removal of the wall because as it was under 1m in height.

With regards to concerns regarding the turning space available; Mr Mew confirmed that the spaces were 2.4m by 4.8 did meet the required standard for parking spaces. He highlighted that there was 6.5m between the opposite spaces and reminded the Committee the WSCC had been consulted and were satisfied that there was adequate turning provision and had raised no objections.

With regards to how many parking spaces were currently associated with properties at Black Boy Court; Mr Mew clarified that there are currently 23 parking spaces provided. In addition, he drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.10 of the report and explained the existing 8 flats at Black Boy Court were only served by 8 parking spaces which results in vehicles being parked on the highway when residences have more than one vehicle.

With regards to the possibility of including a condition to limit commercial vehicles; Mr Mew explained that this was not proposed and unless there was a request for a change of use from residential to commercial is not something that would require planning permission.

On the issue of character and impact on the conservation area; Ms Stevens advised the Committee that many of the surrounding properties did have forecourt parking and it is unlikely that this proposal would stand out. The landscape proposed would help soften the appearance and ensure there would be minimum impact to the street scene.

With regards to the proposed material; Ms Stevens informed the Committee the advice from the Historic Buildings advisor had been for the area to be made from pavers as oppose to gravel. The construction material would be managed under Condition 3 of the report, which could also be amended to ensure that the materials used were porous and maintained as such in perpetuity. With regards to ongoing maintenance, she explained that it would not be reasonable to impose a maintenance plan on a development of this scale.

With regards to the ‘need capacity’; Mr Mew explained that the supporting information as part of the application process did indicate that the current provision was below current parking standards.

In a vote the Committee voted against the officer recommendation to permit.

Rev. Bowden proposed that the application be refused for the following reasons;

The proposal by virtue of the parking of vehicles to the front of the building would result in harm to the character and appearance of the street scene and conservation area, and this identified harm would not be outweighed by any demonstrable benefits. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the following policies that seek to protect the street scene and character of the area; Sections 12 and 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Chichester Local Plan Policies 40 and 47, and Fishbourne Neighbourhood Plan Policies D1 and H1

Mr Briscoe seconded the proposal.

In a vote the Committee voted to refuse the application for the reasons set out above.

Recommendation; refuse, for the reasons set out above.

*Members took a ten-minute break