Agenda item

Construction of 300 dwellings (including 90 affordable dwellings), community hall, public open space, associated works and 2 no. accesses from the A259 (one temporary for construction).

DEFER

Mr Bushell presented the report to Committee. He drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included; an additional comment from Bosham Parish Council; a correction to the report at paragraph 8.56; a revised plan; an additional condition (condition 33); additional third-party comments and an additional planning comment.

 

Mr Bushell outlined the application and explained that it was a full application which sought permission for the construction of 300 dwellings, including 90 affordable dwellings, a community hall, public open spaces, and two accesses from the A259 (one of which was a temporary construction access).

 

Mrs Potts outlined the significance of the site in terms of Planning Policy and the development of the Local Plan. She explained the site had been identified as part of the Preferred Approach for 250 dwellings in 2018, the figure was in addition to the 50 dwellings allocated at the site as part of the adopted site allocations DPD 2018.

 

Miss Potts explained the Local Plan evidence work continued to support the development of the additional 250 dwellings at the site.

 

Following an appeal, the Councils current five-year housing land supply figure was set at under five years, however, Mrs Potts told the Committee work was currently being finalised on the updated figures for 2022 – 2027, it was expected this information would be published towards the end of November.

 

Mr Bushell highlighted the site location. He explained the site was within the Parish of Bosham and adjoined the settlement boundary of Broadbridge, with the Chichester Harbour AONB located to the south of the site.

 

He showed the Committee a superimposed image to demonstrate how the development would border with the Broadbridge settlement area.

 

Mr Bushell outlined the proposed access arrangements from the A259 and explained a cycle priority junction was included within the design, which would link with the existing cycleway which crossed the entrance to the site. In addition, the 30mph speed limit would be extended along the A259 past the new site entrance.

 

Mr Bushell presented the proposed layout of the development and explained how it was designed in a ‘perimeter block’ approach. He highlighted the following and where they would be located within the development;

 

·       Community Hall – the S106 would secure the management and maintenance of the building

·       Allotments

·       Green Space and LAP

·       Mini Football pitch – an addition to the scheme, that responds to a need to provide facilities for the younger ages.

·       Foul water pumping station

·       Affordable housing – these would be ‘pepperpotted’ throughout the development and would include a mix of affordable/social rent housing, shared ownership and first homes.

 

He informed the Committee there would be no streetlighting or floodlights within the development in order to minimise any adverse impact on the dark night sky area. The Committee were informed of the proposed landscaping, which would be secured through Condition 18 and the proposed SUD arrangements.

 

Mr Bushell outlined the proposed parking arrangements and explained there would be 717 spaces provided in total, with 60 allocated for visitors.  He drew the Committee’s attention to the natural green route which passed through the development and linked up with the pedestrian/cycle access.

 

Mr Bushell explained the proposed housing mix, he informed the Committee that the development would comprise of mainly 2 storey dwellings, with some 2.5 storey buildings. He outlined the proposed materials and drew attention to the use of chimneys.

 

The Committee were informed of the sustainability measures which would be incorporated as part of the design including; a fabric first approach; the installation of solar panels on some houses; restricting water usage to 110/l per day and the provision of EV charging points.

 

The following representations were received;

Cllr Charlotte Pexton – Bosham Parish Council

Mr Dick Pratt (Bosham Association) – Objector

Dr Richard Austin (Chichester Harbour Conservancy) – Objector

Mr John Nelson (Chichester Harbour Trust) – Objector

Mr James Cross - Applicant

Cllr Penny Plant – CDC Ward Member

Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Ward Member

 

The Chairman invited Mr Bushell to respond to concerns regarding the application of the Tilted Balance; Mr Bushell explained what the tilted balance was and when and why it should be applied. He confirmed it was government policy included within the NPPF (paragraph 11).

 

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

 

Mr Bushell confirmed the net housing density rate proposed at the site was 30 dwellings/ha. This was below the recommended benchmark in the Local Plan which was 35 dwellings/ha.

 

On the matter of groundwater overwhelming the SUDS basins; Mr Bushell agreed some areas to the northwest and south west of the site did experience groundwater flooding. However, the drainage strategy had been designed to prevent the ingress of groundwater into the SUDs basins. The basins would be lined, allowing their full volume to be taken by the water channelled to it from the appropriate swales and pipes within the site. The drainage engineers have reviewed the calculations and are satisfied that the drainage provision proposed would have enough capacity been for a 100-year event, plus 40% when considering climate change impacts. The release of water into the system would be no higher than green field rates.

 

With regards to Condition 10 and foul water capacity; Mr Bushell acknowledged there was an issue with the current infrastructure leading to the Hearts Farm wastewater treatment works. However, there was capacity at the treatment works to manage the foul flows from the proposed development. The applicant would need to review proposed timescales in order to address the issue of foul flooding and infrastructure to the wastewater works.

 

Ms Bell assured the Committee that Southern Water were aware of the upgrades required in the offsite network. Any upgrade would be done to the current standard and would be completed as part of the gradual upgrade programme.

 

On the agricultural land classification; Mr Bushell confirmed the agricultural land classification was grade 1 and 2. He acknowledged that Government advice was to see lower grade land brought forward for development first, however, much of the land in the district along the southeast corridor was of high quality, this severely limited options for where new housing developments could be accommodated.

 

On the matter of Nitrate Mitigation; Mr Bushell informed the Committee the proposed mitigation was at Chilgrove Farm, the land which would be taken out of production was classified as grade 3. Monitoring of the site would be undertaken by the South Downs National Park and paid for by the developer.

 

On the matter of the size of the Community Hall; Mr Bushell explained how Community Hall had come about, it was designed to complement existing facilities within the area and meet the needs of the new community at the site. As detailed in the draft S106 agreement the hall would need to be delivered by the time occupation of the 250^th dwelling took place.

 

With regards to street trees; Mr Bushell showed the Committee the proposed landscaping plan, he explained officers had worked with the developer to improve the greening of the development. From no trees being located on streets there were now several trees located throughout. Officers were satisfied with the proposal.

 

On the matter of cycling; Mr Bushell assured the Committee the development would not impact the delivery of the Chemroute, with a cycle priority junction included as part of the access to the site.

 

With regards to secondary access to the site; Mr Bushell explained the access was temporary and formed part of the construction management plan. However, he acknowledged the concerns made regarding unauthorised vehicle use and agreed an amendment could be made to Condition 31 to ensure that once the show home and construction use of the access had ceased measures could be made to prevent unauthorised non-emergency vehicular access.

 

On the issue of the management of the open space provision; Mr Bushell informed the Committee that it would be dealt with through the S106 agreement, including the provision of litter bins and play equipment.

 

With regards to restricting the amount of Affordable Housing provided; Mr Bushell confirmed there was a clause within the draft S106 to limit the affordable housing provision to 30% maximum, this would be policy compliant.

 

In response to concerns regarding access to the ditch on the western boundary; Mr Bushell informed the Committee, that a separate swale would be located 3m from the ditch, to prevent the existing ditch from becoming overloaded. The swale had been located to ensure adequate access to the existing ditch for maintenance purposes. Condition 9 of the report secured appropriate riparian responsibilities. Mr Bushell advised the word ‘existing’ be added to Condition 9 as follows; ‘…of any existing watercourse…’ to provide further clarity.

 

Mr Bushell agreed an informative could be included to prevent the ingress of surface and ground water, and to supplement Condition 10.

 

On the matter of the A27 and developer contributions; Ms Bell informed the Committee it had been confirmed the developer contribution would be the most up to date at the time of signing the S106 agreement.

 

With regards to education provision; Ms Bell explained WSCC education assessed all development being brought forward, alongside allocations in the Local Plan to plot school allocations and future placement. She informed the Committee that she had met with officers to understand where capacity was needed, with an expansion planned at Southbourne Primary school to meet demand from new development. Ms Bell informed the proposed development did not require a new school to be delivered.

 

In response to concerns regarding the developments impact on the dark skies area; Mr Bushell drew attention to Condition 30 which prevented streetlights, apart from at the main access onto the A259 for safety.

 

On the matter of solar panels; Ms Bell explained it would be unlikely the orientation of certain dwellings in the development would not be suitable for solar panel installation. She suggested an informative be added which gave future purchasers the opportunity to request solar panels as part of the build.

 

In addition, Ms Stevens confirmed the proposal went above the required building regulations in respect of sustainability measures proposed and was policy compliant. Therefore, the council could not insist Solar Panels were installed on all dwellings, however, the informative could be included on the decision.

 

On the matter of a future service charge being levied; Mr Bushell confirmed there would be a service charge to cover future maintenance costs.

 

On the matter of how much ‘weight’ could be given to the Bosham Neighbourhood Plan; Mrs Potts explained that in line with paragraph 14 of the NPPF the Bosham Neighbourhood Plan was over two years old and did not carry the same weight as other policy.

 

Having listened to the debate Cllr Briscoe proposed the application be deferred for a site visit. In addition, he requested WSCC highways attend Committee when the application is brought back to further explain the impact on the local road network and, for an updated comment from Southern Water.

 

Cllr Brisbane seconded the proposal

 

The Chairman requested that if the application were deferred officers relook at the proposed football pitch and liaise with Bosham Football Club and update the proposed conditions.

 

Cllr Oakley asked that the size and orientation of the community building was also reconsidered.

 

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of Cllr Briscoe’s proposal to Defer for a site visit.

 

Resolved; defer for a site visit.  

 

*Members took a ten-minute break

*Cllr Oakley left the meeting at 11.50