Agenda item

Non material amendment to planning permission 21/03391/FUL, to revise elevation drawings detailing the removal of brick plinth walls and canopies and the revision of northern boundary wall design.

Delegate to Officers

Ms Thatcher presented the report to the Committee. She drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which set out; an amendment to the proposal; an additional comment from WSCC Highways and eight additional objections.

Ms Thatcher detailed the location site and confirmed that it was within the Chichester settlement boundary. In January 2022 Planning permission had been granted to redevelop the site, and Ms Thatcher informed the Committee that following a recent site visit she could confirm demolition and ground works had commenced.

Ms Thatcher explained that the application sought Non-Material Amendments (NMA) to the planning permission granted in January 2022. She provided a summary of the proposed amendments;

·       The removal of brick plinths from blocks 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5, to be replaced with vertical cladding which would continue to the ground.

·       The removal of the entrance canopies from all blocks.

·       The removal of the brick piers from the western side of the North boundary wall.

Ms Thatcher confirmed it was officer opinion that all the proposed amendments were minor and could be considered as Non-Material

The Committee received the following representations;

Mrs Abigail Blumzon – Objector (statement read by Lynne Friel)

Mr Alan Mee - Objector

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the design merits and the sustainability merits of the proposals; Ms Thatcher informed the Committee as the application was a Non-Material Amendment application, planning merits (or any other merits such as design and sustainability) cannot be considered. She advised the Committee that they were being asked to consider whether the proposals could be considered as non-material and drew their attention to section 7 of the report which set out the relevant Planning Policy.

On the issue of the northern boundary wall; Ms Thatcher explained that the works to the northern boundary wall had already been approved as part of the earlier planning application. She reminded the Committee that with regard to the western part of the northern boundary wall the proposal was only for the removal of the brick piers, which was considered a non-material amendment.

Ms Thatcher confirmed that should the Planning Committee decide the proposed amendments were not non-material then the Council would have to come back to Committee with a further Section 73 application

With regards to any potential lighting provided in the pedestrian canopies; Ms Thatcher informed the Committee that any lighting provision would have been included as part of the lighting condition which had not yet been discharged. However, she did not think there had been any lighting proposed with the canopies.

In response to the Committee’s concerns that the proposed amendments to the northern wall were greater than what could be classified as a non-material amendment; Ms Stevens acknowledged the importance of considering each of the individual amendments proposed in turn, however, she advised the Committee that the application they were being asked to consider was whether there would be any material change to the permitted scheme. The permitted scheme was an industrial site of over 4000 sqm and Ms Stevens confirmed that in officer opinion the proposed amendments would cause no material change. 

With regards to the change in cladding direction from horizontal to vertical cladding; Ms Thatcher explained that the previous applications were subject to conditions which required details of samples of materials to be submitted, the change in the direction of cladding had been dealt with under the discharge of said conditions.

On the matter of proposed planting by the northern boundary wall; Ms Thatcher explained that this would be considered as part of the landscaping condition which had yet to be discharged. She confirmed that all trees on site, apart from a diseased Cherry tree, would remain.

Ms Stevens acknowledged the concerns raised by the Committee and advised that the report recommendation could be changed to ‘Delegate to Officers’ to allow for further negotiations to take place regarding landscaping.

Following the discussion Cllr Oakley proposed the decision be ‘Delegated to Officers’ for consultation with ward members, noting that Members could red card the application if required.

The proposal was seconded by Cllr Briscoe.

In a vote the Committee agreed to support Cllr Oakley’s recommendation to ‘Delegate to Officers’.

Recommendation; Delegate to Officers, for the reasons set out above.