Agenda item

Development comprising the demolition of existing B2 use shipyard buildings and structures and the erection of 3no. replacement C3 dwellings with access, parking, landscaping and associated works.

Defer for further information

Mr Thomas presented the report to the Committee. He drew their attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included; some further supporting information from the applicant/agent; an Addendum to the Planning History; Additional third-party representation; an Addendum to the report and an Amendments to conditions 22.

He outlined the application site, and confirmed the site was located within the Parish of Bosham and the Chichester Harbour AONB, just outside the settlement boundary. He explained that the proposal was to redevelop a former shipyard and build three executive style homes.

Mr Thomas informed the Committee of a previous planning application for the site, which had been refused in 2013 and dismissed at appeal in September 2014. He highlighted the proposed scheme which had been refused and explained the differences between the refused scheme and the application being considered.

Mr Thomas confirmed the existing vehicle access from Winward Road would be retained as part of the development and showed that each plot would have sufficient parking provision.

He highlighted the trees to the north of the site and informed the Committee that they were protected by an area Tree Preservation Order (TPO), mitigation measures had been included within the application to ensure their protection and health is not impacted during development.

Mr Thomas explained the required flood mitigation measures for plots A & B.

The Committee were shown a number of slides detailing the elevations of each plot, proposed street scenes and materials to be used in the development. The height of the proposed buildings would be in keeping with neighbouring properties on Morton Road. Mr Thomas explained the density of the development was reflective of development along the area of coastline.

Mr Thomas showed the Committee images of the current site and its relationship with neighbouring properties.

The following representations were received;

Cllr Antony Chapman – Bosham Parish Council

Miss Kate Dachowski – Objector

Mr Ashley Hatton – Objector

Mr David Gooding – Objector (Mr Andrew Warner spoke on Mr Gooding’s behalf)

Mr Dick Pratt – Supporter

Mr Christopher Hitchings – Supporter

Mr Peter Hankey – Supporter

Mr Paul White – Agent

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Ward Member

Cllr Penny Plant – CDC Ward Member

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

Ms Stevens explained the reason the report recommendation was to ‘delegate to officers’; was to allow officers to consider the recently updated guidance on nitrate neutrality. The guidance, published by Natural England was unexpected, the Committee report had already been prepared with a recommendation to ‘permit’. In response it was decided the report would be brought to Committee with an amended recommendation of ‘delegate to officers’, allowing officers to assess whether the proposal would still be nitrate neutral following the change in guidance. The application was considered suitable in all other respects.

Ms Stevens reminded the Committee that if they did not wish to delegate to officers, they could vote to either defer or refuse the application.

With regards to pre applications for the site: Mr Thomas confirmed that two pre applications had been submitted; the first in August 2020 and the second in December 2021. The submissions had proposed alternative solutions for the site including a mixed-use development of residential and shipyard buildings. Mr Thomas informed the Committee that officers had met with the applicants and provided pre application advice regarding the suitability of the redevelopment.  In addition, Ms Stevens reminded the Committee that unlike Planning Applications, Pre-Application enquiries are confidential until an application for the proposal is submitted.

With regards to the proposed use of the site; Mr Thomas informed the Committee that the proposed development equated to a ratio of six dwellings per hectare. He acknowledged that this was below the normal standard, however, when considering the visual impact of the development a lower density was felt to be more in keeping. The Housing Officer had raised no objection to the proposed mix of housing. In addition, Mr Broadway confirmed that in would not be appropriate to develop the site further than what was proposed given the required flood defences and the potential harm from the visual impact.

In response to concerns raised by the Committee over the loss of an employment site; Ms Golding advised that as the site was dilapidated and had not been used as an employment site for around 30 years it has a ‘nil use’ as the previous use had been abandoned. As such the developer is not required to submit evidence of marketing the site as an employment or commercial site as the land has a ‘nil use’ status. She explained there were a number of high court cases to refer to on the matter.

In response to concerns regarding the sequential test; Ms Stevens acknowledged that it was unusual to carry out a sequential test on a single site, however, it was not unheard of National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) advocates that a pragmatic approach is taken when considering sequential tests and this was the approach that officers had adopted, along with the ‘exception test’ of the site being vacant for a long period of time.  She informed the Committee of a previous application where the sequential test had been narrowed down to an individual site.

In response to concern such a development may conflict with Planning Policy within an AONB; Ms Stevens confirmed there was no conflict, the land was a brownfield site which had been previously developed.

With regards to Condition 16; Mr Thomas agreed the wording could be changed to ensure bat and bird boxes were secured to buildings if the Committee felt that was appropriate.

On the matter of external lighting; Mr Thomas explained the proposed external lighting would be focused on the vehicle parking provision, with 10 low level (approximately 1m in height) lighting bollards included as part of the development.

With regards to the amount of glazing proposed as part of the development; Mr Thomas acknowledged the comments made; however, the level of glazing had been significantly reduced when compared to the appeal scheme.

In response to concerns raised regarding the impact of the development on the Public Right of Way (PROW); Mr Broadway explained that any impact on the PROW would be set against the existing surrounding, as the site was currently derelict the proposed new landscaping would be an improvement to the experience on the footpath. In addition,

With regards to flood mitigation; Mr Henly explained the flood risk to the site was tidal and confirmed the proposed solution would be effective.

On the issue of a Visual Impact Assessment; Mr Thomas confirmed a Visual Impact Assessment had been submitted as part of the application. The assessment had concluded the effect of the proposed landscaping on the wider area would be beneficial or neutral; as it would replace the derelict ship buildings and dilapidated character of the site. The assessment acknowledged the proposed buildings would be more prominent than the current shipyard, but this would not be dissimilar to other properties surrounding the site on the eastern shore of the Bosham Channel.

In response to concerns regarding the HGV movements during construction; Mr Thomas was unaware of the volume of material that would be brought on to site. However, he drew the Committee’s attention to the proposed report Condition’s which did include the standard CEMP condition. In addition, if the application were to be deferred this information could be presented at later Committee.

Following the debate Mr Brisbane proposed that the application be deferred for further information to be provided on the following;

·       Nitrate neutrality

·       Landscaping

·       Information and assessment on the volume of material required to be imported onto the site and associated HGV movement

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for further information, as detailed above.

Recommendation; defer for further information, as detailed above.

*Members took a ten-minute break.