Agenda item

Construction of a new extension to the existing building.

Permit

Ms Prichard presented the report to the Committee. She outlined the application site and highlighted the proposed extension, drawing the Committee’s attention to the proximity of the development to its neighbouring locations.

Ms Prichard explained the application had been deferred for a site visit at the meeting on 15 June 2022, the Committee had also requested further information on; the proposed soakaway; clarification regarding land contamination and gas venting; confirmation of how the remaining bund would be supported; further details of biodiversity net gain and clarification of site levels. Ms Prichard confirmed these matters had been addressed and were detailed in the report in bold print.

She showed the Committee the proposed elevations and confirmed there would be no changes to the eastern elevation.

Ms Prichard highlighted the bund and the proposed amendments (including landscaping) that would be made as part of the application. She explained the bund would be excavated at a 60^o angle and reinforced would with a geotextile membrane. The height would be retained at the existing height of 2.3m.

Ms Prichard informed the Committee that since the last Committee meeting the applicant had had a tree survey undertaken in response to concerns over Ash Dieback. The results of the survey have meant that 17 trees will be remove along the northern boundary, however 29 trees would be retained. In addition, a revised planting plan has been submitted which shows the planting of 34 new native species along the boundary.

Ms Prichard highlighted the proposed new soakaway and confirmed that it did not conflict with either the existing soakaway or the gas venting trench.

The following representations were received;

Mr Simpson – Objector

Mrs Shortman – Objector

Mr Gary Ewins – Supporter

Mr Luke Crooks – Applicant

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions as follows;

With regards to managing the visual impact from the building; Ms Prichard agreed that if the Committee wished the five year limit for replacing trees could be removed, so that the applicant would be required to replace trees indefinitely if required.

On the issue of Solar Panels; Ms Prichard advised the Committee that the installation of solar panels was not part of the application. In addition, Ms Stevens acknowledged the concern raised by the Committee over the visual impact from the installation of solar panels, but advised the removal of any permitted development rights would only be applicable to the extension and not the building as a whole.

With regards to concerns regarding impact from noise; Ms Bell drew the Committee’s attention to Condition 17. She confirmed officers had reviewed and considered the Noise Impact Assessment, and, with the inclusion of condition 19 were satisfied the noise element was acceptable.

On the matter of separation distances between residential buildings and commercial buildings; Ms Prichard drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.15 of the report. She explained that whilst there was no set guidance for separation distances between houses and proposed commercial building the Council did have guidance contained within the Chichester District Council Development Management Service Planning Guidance Note 3 which did offer advice on what would be acceptable.

With regards to the soil from the excavation; Ms Bell explained the landscape condition had been amended to try and prevent any of the soil excavated from the bund entering landfill, including further landscape enhancements and the potential creation of a second bund.

On the matter of the open space along the Pitcroft; Ms Bell agreed this was used as an informal area for recreational purposes and could be conditioned so that it was retained as an open space, with an informative also included to retain the recreational element.

With regards to variances in levels; Ms Prichard confirmed that the site levels had been investigated and drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.9a (page 100) of the report. She confirmed the site was predominately flat (apart from the bund) and officers were satisfied there would be a satisfactory relationship between the site and the Phase 9a development site to the north.

With regards to the type of trees which would be planted: Ms Prichard confirmed this would be controlled through Condition 16.

Following a discussion regarding the appropriate colour of the building and how it impacted on neighbouring residential properties; officers agreed to amend Condition 14 to reflect the Committee’s concerns over the colour of the building.

On the matter of consulting with residents; Ms Stevens explained that it was not possible to include a condition or informative requiring the applicant to consult with neighbours. However, officers would liaise with the local ward members.

With regards to the inclusion of a water management condition for the new trees; Ms Stevens agreed that a management proposal could be included, however, it would not be acceptable to ask the applicant to pay an ongoing monitoring fee. The site was visible and if there were any concerns these could be reported to the Enforcement Team who would then investigate. 

In a vote the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to permit, subject to the amended conditions as discussed, aswell as the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

Resolved; permit; subject to the amended conditions as discussed, aswell as the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

*Members took a ten-minute break

* Cllr Potter and Cllr Sharp left the meeting at 11.25am