Agenda item

Demolition of existing office building and redevelopment for 9 dwellings, including access, parking, landscaping, amenity space and associated infrastructure.

Defer for further information.

Mr Thomas presented the report to Committee. He drew their attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included an Addendum to the recommendation; Mr Thomas explained that the proposed recommendation was to Delegate to officers. The update sheet also included an Addendum to the report and an assessment outlining the reason for the change to the recommendation.

Mr Thomas informed the Committee the application sought permission for the demolition of the old office block and the construction of nine new dwellings. He highlighted the proposed site layout, the different style of housing units and the vehicle access.

The Committee received the following representations;

Cllr Polly Gaskin – Chichester City Council

Miss Phillippa Gatehouse – Agent

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

Mr Thomas confirmed that access from the Bognor Road would be closed and acknowledged that there was the potential for further hedging.

On the issue of affordable housing; Mr Thomas explained that the site formed part of the larger strategic Bellway development which was being delivered in three phases. Although no affordable homes were provided as part of the application being considered Mr Thomas confirmed that 31% of the completed development would be affordable housing.

With regards to the provision of a pedestrian refuge; Mr Thomas informed the Committee that the Highway Consultant had not given any reason as to why a pedestrian refuge was not required. He highlighted the proposed crossing points which would include tactile paving. In addition, Ms Stevens reminded the Committee that WSCC Highways had raised no objection to the proposal.

On the matter of Nitrate Mitigation; Ms Stevens explained that the original recommendation (as set out in the report) was proposed to secure the appropriate nitrate mitigation, which she believed was on agricultural land classification 3. However, since writing the Committee report Natural England had released new updated guidance which required further consideration by officers and was the reason the report recommendation had been changed to ‘Delegate to Officers’.

On the matter of community facilities; Ms Stevens explained that CIL and financial contributions for the provision of community facilities had been collected through earlier phases of the development.

In response to concerns regarding the loss of employment land; Mrs Purnell reminded the Committee that the developer had originally marketed the site as an office suite but there had been no interest.

With regards to the foul drainage on site; Ms Stevens confirmed that the foul water from the site would go to Apuldram. She explained Southern Water had raised no objection. The adopted position statement requires development of 10 or more dwellings to demonstrate that there was no net increase from the development. As a point of note, Ms Stevens reminded the Committee that the site already had a certain level of use attached to it from its previous use.

On the matter of requiring a S106 contribution for a pedestrian refuge; Ms Stevens informed the Committee that a TAD contribution had been collected as part of an earlier phasing of the development. Whilst a S106 could be used to secure a pedestrian refuge it could not just be added without consulting WSCC in their role as the highway authority. She advised the Committee that if their desire was for a pedestrian refuge to be included the application should be deferred and brought back to Committee to allow for further negotiations with the developer and WSCC.

With regards to Plot 7: Mr Thomas acknowledged the comments made regarding the proposed elevation and would negotiate with the developer to provide more appropriate detailing. Mrs Purnell used her discretion as Chairman and invited the agent to comment on the matter. The agent explained the elevation on plot 7 did have window detailing and should not have been presented as a blank elevation.

Following the discussion Rev. Bowden proposed the application be deferred for further information be provided for the following reasons;

·       The proposed nitrate neutrality measure

·       The provision of a pedestrian refuge

·       The integration of bird and bat houses within the dwelling houses

·       Further detailing to be provided for plot 7

·       The inclusion of a photographic record of the site before demolition for historical records

Mr Oakley seconded the proposal.

In a vote the Committee agreed to endorse the amended recommendation to defer for further information, for the reasons set out above.

Recommendation; defer for further information, for the reasons set out above.

*members took a ten minute break