Agenda item

Demolition of existing property and construction of 2 no. detached dwellings, garaging and associated works.

Defer for S106 then permit

Mr Thomas presented the report to the Committee. He drew their attention to the Agenda Update which included an additional representation from the Parish Council and an additional third-party objection.

Mr Thomas highlighted the application site and informed the Committee that the site was located within the Parish of Chidham and Hambrook and the Chichester Harbour AONB.

Mr Thomas highlighted the length on the gardens that fronted the main road and explained that they were approximately 30m in length. He showed the Committee the proposed elevations and designs of the two dwellings. The existing estate fencing would be extended along the eastern, and a new hedge would be planted.

The application had been submitted with a nitrate neutrality report and had identified a surplus of 0.8kg of nitrate per year to be mitigated for nitrate neutrality to be achieved. Mr Thomas highlighted the proposed area of land (a total of 0.03ha) to be used for the nitrate mitigation and confirmed that the land did fall within the Chichester Harbour catchment area.

The Committee received the following representations;

Ms Kerry Simmons – Agent

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of the proposed nitrate mitigation; Ms Stevens explained that advice was provided by Natural England who had reviewed the proposed mitigation and confirmed that it was suitable, and the assessments undertaken were acceptable. She explained should there be any issue with the mitigation the S106 would ensure suitable mitigation is agreed before permission is granted.

On the matter of the Strategic Wildlife Corridors; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to pages 37 and 38 of the report which set out the comments from the Environmental Strategy team. She confirmed that consideration had been given to the impact on the wildlife corridor, with particular consideration being given to the impact on bats and lighting and conditions had been included to ensure ecological enhancements.

With regards to whether the site could be considered a windfall site; Ms Bell explained that officers considered the application to be a new application and not attached to the previous Green Acre development. The land was previously developed land which meant it could be redeveloped in principle. Overall, there would be a net increase of one dwelling.

Ms Bell explained to the Committee why the application was supported by the Neighbourhood Plan Policy.

With regards to the difference between the first-floor heights of the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling; Mr Thomas confirmed that the proposed heights were broadly in line with the existing heights. In addition, Ms Stevens outlined the proposed window layout and the developments relationship with neighbouring properties.

On the matter of how much land should be set aside to achieve nitrate neutrality; Ms Stevens explained that nitrate mitigation could be achieved in several ways, taking land out of agriculture was just one way.

On the matter of how CDC safeguards the land used for nitrate mitigation; Ms Golding explained that the S106 agreement would be signed by all interested parties, including the owner of the land being used for the nitrate mitigation.

With regards to the sustainability of the development; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to condition 5 of the report (p.50) and explained no development would commence above slab level until the sustainability statement had been signed off by the Council. 

In a vote the Committee agreed to the report recommendation to defer for Section 106 then permit.

Recommendation; defer for Section 106 then permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.