Agenda item

Outline permission for 26 no. dwellings with access, public open space, community orchard and other associated works (with all matters reserved except for access).

Refuse; against officer recommendation

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee and drew their attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included; further third-party objections; additional information regarding the S106 provision for affordable housing; and an addendum to conditions 10 and 11 within the report.

Ms Bell highlighted the site location and showed how the site was accessed from the A259. She explained that the access was shared with neighbouring properties including Far Close and Oaklands. She informed the Committee that the site lies within floodzone 1, with the Chichester Harbour AONB lying just south of the site on the opposite side of the road.

Ms Bell explained that the application was an Outline application for 26 dwellings, of which eight (31%) would be affordable and the Committee were being asked to consider the access and principle of development. All other matters including appearance, landscaping and layout would be considered as part of a future Reserve Matters Application.

The proposed housing mix is to provide 18 market homes and eight affordable homes, of which six would be social rented and two would be first homes. The density of development would be approximately 20 homes per hectare.

Ms Bell showed the Committee an illustrative layout of how a development may be presented on the site. She highlighted the drainage ditches and confirmed that drainage officer had considered the proposals and was content that adequate provision had been made for future maintenance.

Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to the site’s location in proximity to the proposed Strategic Wildlife Corridor. Following discussion with the Environmental Strategy Officer there have been a number of amendments including the inclusion of a community orchard and; the realignment and repositioning of dwellings to limit the impact from lighting on biodiversity within the corridor.

Ms Bell informed the Committee that the applicant had confirmed the ownership of the site and the site outline shown in the presentation was correct.

Ms Bell showed the Committee some photos of the access arrangements for the site and detailed the visibility splays.

The Committee received the following representations;

Mr Stephen Johnson – Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council

Mrs Jane Towers – Objector

Mr Chris Lyons – Agent

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Ward Member

Officers responded to Member’s questions and comments as follows;

With regards to the increase in the number of dwellings on the site; Ms Bell explained that the proposal being considered demonstrated a more efficient use of land with 20 units per hectare, along with a provision of affordable housing. The number of dwellings being proposed was part of the decision the Committee were being asked to consider and had been thoroughly scrutinised by officer to ensure that the proposed number could be accommodated on site.

On the matter of nitrate mitigation; Ms Bell confirmed the proposed nitrate mitigation had been amended and updated to reflect the current proposal. In addition, Ms Bell confirmed that all mitigation proposals for all documents including; the recreational disturbance contribution and the National Highways contribution had been updated and consulted on to reflect the proposed number of dwellings.

With regards to the Five-Year Housing Land Supply (5YHLS); Ms Bell confirmed that there was a current 5YHLS.

On the matter of what had changed since the Appeal on the same site; Ms Bell explained that an application for 10 units had been submitted in 2018, the application had gone to Appeal and was dismissed. At appeal the Planning Inspector had ruled that the site could not be classed as windfall as horticultural land could not be classed as previously developed land and therefore did not meet the criteria. Ms Bell highlighted that the policy situation was very different when the appeal was considered, the application that the Committee were being asked to consider had been reviewed by officers against the IPS, and in officer opinion the site was within an enclave of development and was suitably located between two service villages. In addition, Ms Bell informed the Committee that the Inspector had found no issue with the landscape character or access to the site.

On the issue of access arrangements; Ms Bell showed the Committee an illustrative layout of the proposed access arrangements. She explained that proposed provision showed that the road would be 5.5m in width at its widest point and 4.8m in width at its narrowest, there would also be a minimum width of 1.5m for the footway. Ms Bell confirmed that WSCC had reviewed the application and were content with the proposal. She reminded the Committee that details such as raised tables and tactile paving would be decided as part of a future REM application.

With regards to how the application would affect the future 5YHLS; Ms Bell explained that if permitted the proposed 26 houses would certainly contribute to the overall housing land supply.

With regards to the impact on the AONB; Ms Stevens reminded the Committee that the Chichester Harbour Conservancy had not objected to the application.

Rev. Bowden proposed that the recommendation be deferred for a site visit, Mrs Sharp seconded the proposal.

In a vote the Committee did not support the proposal for a site visit, therefore the recommendation was not carried.

Mr Briscoe proposed that the Committee refuse the application, against officer recommendation for the following reasons;

The proposal, by reason of its unsustainable location would result in the reliance on a private motor vehicle to access local services and facilities; and cause adverse impact upon the amenity of the surrounding area. Securing the necessary infrastructure and required mitigation for nitrates and recreational disturbance cannot be guaranteed due to the lack of a S106 agreement.

Mr Potter seconded the proposal.

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the proposal to refuse the recommendation, for the reasons set out above.

Recommendation; refuse, against officer recommendation; for the reasons set out above.

* Judy Fowler left the meeting at 12.46pm

*Members took a ten-minute break