Agenda item

Demolition of existing warehouse buildings, B8 container storage, residential caravans/park homes and stables and the erection of 9 no. dwellings and associated works including landscaping and access alterations.

Refuse; against officer recommendation

Ms Bell presented the report to the Committee. She provided the following verbal update;

 

-       An additional condition for the requirement of a sample flint panel wall for plot 9 would be included if the application is permitted.

 

Ms Bell highlighted the application, which was located on the northside of the main road and between the settlement boundaries of Nutbourne East and Broadbridge. The Chichester Harbour AONB is located to the south of the site

 

Access to the site is shared with three other dwellings and set back approximately 100m from the road. Ms Bell confirmed the land was designated as previously developed land.

 

Ms Bell showed the Committee the current site layout which was ‘mixed use’, comprising of 1715m² of industrial and warehouse buildings (falling under Use Class E), a B8 storage container, four caravans/park homes and equestrian stables. Ms Bell highlighted where these units were currently located.

 

Ms. Bell informed the Committee the applicant had undertaken a commercial viability report (May 2022), which had considered the viability of redevelopment, subsequent modelling demonstrated the site did not support sustainable long-term employment. Ms Bell confirmed it was officer opinion Policy 26 was not triggered.

 

Ms Bell clarified the application was for full permission for the development of nine open market dwellings, including associated works. A commuted sum for Affordable Housing would be secured through S106 agreement. Ms Bell detailed the proposed mix of housing and layout, with a density of 16 dwellings per hectare. She highlighted the proposed parking arrangements which would consist of 17 on-plot parking spaces and nine garages, there would also be two visitor spaces. The proposal included a minimum of 20% active electrical charging points.

 

Ms Bell detailed the proposed landscaping and informed the Committee the current hedging would be maintained wherever possible. She highlighted a 3m maintenance buffer to the north of the site which was secured through condition.

 

Ms Bell drew Member’s attention to the 1.5m maintenance buffer for the drainage ditch which ran to the western boundary of the site, along with a 3m access for a small digger; she confirmed this was secured by condition.

 

Ms Bell showed the Committee the proposed elevations for the different dwellings.

 

As part of the development the existing access onto the Main Road would be improved through the removal of a small brick structure which would allow the bell mouth to be widened and achieve the required visibility splays.

Ms Bell informed the Committee that the development would require nitrate mitigation, and a site of .366ha was required to offset the development. The applicant was proposing an area of land in East Dean which was classified as a mix of grade 3 and grade 4, Ms Bell confirmed the area of land was in the fluvial catchment of the Solent Maritime SAC. A S106 is recommended to secure the mitigation and ensure the land is taken out agricultural in perpetuity. Ms Bell confirmed Natural England had raised no objection to the application.

 

The Committee received representations from;

 

Cllr Jane Towers – Parish Council Representative

Mr Stephen Johnson – Objector

Mr Chris Snowdon – Objector

Mr Julius Thurgood - Objector

Mr Paul White – Agent

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Ward Member (statement read by Mrs Fiona Baker)

Cllr Penny Plant – CDC Ward Member

 

Before officers responded to questions from the Committee the Chairman invited Ms Bell and Mr Shaw to clarify the access arrangements to the site and the removal of the wall as raised by Cllr Towers. Mr Shaw highlighted the brick cabinet that would be removed to improve access onto the A259.

 

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

 

To help clarify how officers had interpreted both Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plan Policies when considering the application; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.11 (p.60) which set out the how the Chidham & Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan Policy LP1 was modified by the Examiner. Having read the Examiner’s report, she explained it was officers understanding that the wording had been set out to specifically allow the consideration of detailed Development Management Polices not listed within the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

With regards to which plan took precedence; Ms Bell informed the Committee legal opinion had been provided for the Green Acre Nursery Site, this was detailed in paragraph 8.8 (p.60) of the report.

 

In response to concerns regarding the loss of employment from the site; Ms Bell assured the Committee that officers had considered the loss of employment as part of their assessment. The site was mixed use with employment units, stables, and residential dwellings. However, it was officer opinion that the housing need outweighed the loss of employment.

 

With regards to future maintenance of the drainage ditch; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 27 of the report (p.78) which specifically required a 1.5m wide drainage ditch buffer, she clarified this was in addition to the ditch. She informed the Committee that significant discussions had taken place with the drainage officer and it was anticipated that a small digger would access the ditch through the 3m wide access point and then enter the ditch to undertake clearance and maintenance works. Ms Bell was unable to confirm whether the ditch was located within the red line which marked the site boundary, but confirmed officers were confident they could secure necessary access. In addition, Ms Stevens reminded the Committee that it was riparian responsibility to maintain the drainage ditch, she provided further detail to as to how maintenance would be undertaken.

 

With regards to the presence of water voles in the ditch; Ms Stevens informed the Committee that the application had been submitted with Ecological surveys and there were no records of protected species on site. She drew the Committee’s attention to p51 and p52 which set out comments from the Environmental Strategy Unit.

 

With regards to Policy 26 being a material consideration; Ms Bell agreed that Policy 26 was a Development Management Policy, however, she explained that not all Development Management Policies needed to be applied, only those considered relevant to the application were considered. Officers had considered Policy 26 and did not believe it was triggered by the application due the site being classified as mixed use.

 

On the issue of nitrate mitigation; Ms Stevens informed the Committee that the Council were working with a landowner to bring forward a scheme of mitigation. She confirmed that the site did lie within the fluvial catchment of the harbour and a hydrology report had been submitted to demonstrate how the ground water moves and drains into the Harbour. Natural England had no objection to the proposed mitigation for nitrate neutrality. Ms Stevens acknowledged the Committee’s concern regarding land being taken out of agriculture, however, there would be biodiversity benefits.

 

With regards to the monitoring of nitrate mitigation; Ms Stevens explained that as the site was located within the National Park, monitoring would be carried out by the South Downs National Park Authority and a monitoring fee was included within the S106 agreement to cover this. She told the Committee officers were creating an internal mapping system of all areas of land being used for nitrate mitigation. In addition, Ms Golding informed the Committee that the South Downs National Park would undertake annual monitoring for the first 20 years, thereafter every five years, a provision of easy access to sites was also included with no fewer than seven days’ notice being given. She confirmed that the SDNPA were a signatory to the S106.

 

In response to whether Economic Development had recently spoken to tenants; Ms Bell informed the Committee that she was unaware, however, they had been consulted and their comments were included within the report.

 

The Chairman invited Mr Rahman from the Economic Development team to address the Committee. Mr Rahman confirmed he had visited the site and spoken with several tenants to understand how viable businesses were. In his opinion the businesses located at the site were viable and the premises did offer affordable workspaces. He explained that within the District there was a lack of this type of workspace and further loss would put pressure on other industrial estates.

 

With regards to access to services, and the appeal decision at Church Road, West Wittering; Ms Bell reminded the Committee that each site was different, however, in that appeal the Inspector was content that not all services were local. In making this recommendation, officers had considered the sustainability elements against the housing requirement and proposed the application is permitted. In addition; Ms Stevens informed the Committee that an Inspector had deemed the site ‘mixed use site’, it was not a single employment site.

 

With regards to the proposed housing mix; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to page 52 and 53 of the report which detailed the proposed housing mix. The Housing Delivery team had raised no objection to the housing mix. Ms Bell acknowledged comments made regarding the delivery of affordable housing, however, she reminded the Committee that Housing Delivery was District wide and contributions were important to enable future delivery.

 

In response to safety concerns regarding the site access; Mr Shaw reminded the Committee that the site access was already in use and there was no evidence to suggest any safety issues. In addition, he explained the applicant had demonstrated there would be fewer trips generated from the site if permitted.

 

The Chairman asked Ms Stevens for advice regarding what weight could be attributed to the loss of employment versus the need for houses. Ms Stevens advised the Committee that it was clear from recent appeal decisions the weight given to market housing was substantial or significant. With regards to the application being considered there was no evidence to suggest the housing mix was not suitable. She reminded the Committee that Mr Shaw had confirmed the highway proposals were acceptable and there were no technical reasons for refusal. With regards to the loss of employment, officers had recognised that there would be some loss of employment, however in officer opinion, the loss of did not outweigh the benefit of the housing.

 

Following a vote, the Committee; voted against the recommendation to defer for S106 then permit.

 

Having debated the item and listened to the representations made Cllr Oakley proposed the application be refused for the following reasons;

 

1)    The loss of active employment land that would be in contravention of LPP26, particularly noting the final paragraph which notes existing employment land being retained. It has been  

 

2)    The application did not comply with LPP42 as it did not demonstrate sufficient clarity the ditch on the western boundary would be maintained in perpetuity, to ensure soakaways are allowed to function. The proposed maintenance of the ditch was a Health and Safety measure.

 

 

Cllr Potter seconded the proposal.

 

In response to the proposal, Ms Stevens advised the Committee that it would be difficult to defend the second reason for refusal as there was no objection from the Lead Flood Authority or Drainage Engineer.

 

With regards to the current dwellings on site; Ms Bell confirmed there were lawful dwellings on the site.  Ms Stevens acknowledged there would not be a net gain of nine houses.

 

Members expressed further concern about the loss of an employment uses on the site despite the fact it was a ‘mixed used’ brownfield site and not classified as an ‘employment site’. Members considered the net gain of housing proposed did not outweigh the economic harm caused by the loss of employment, particularly as there were already residential properties on the site and therefore the net gain in the number of dwellings was not significant.

 

 

Following further discussion Cllr Oakley amended his reason for refusal to the following;

 

1)    The net increase of proposed dwellings would not outweigh the loss of business uses and existing residencies already on site contrary to policy 26 of the Local Plan.

 

2)    The application did not comply with LPP42 as it did not demonstrate sufficient clarity the ditch on the western boundary would be maintained in perpetuity, to ensure soakaways are allowed to function.

 

Cllr Potter seconded the proposal.

 

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to refuse the application for the reasons set out, against officer recommendation.

 

*Members took a ten-minute break.