Agenda item

Outline Application (with all matters reserved accept Access) for the demolition of caravan repair building, cessation of use of land for caravan storage and removal of hardstandings and erection of 1no 4bed, 3no 3 bed, 4no 2bed and 1no 1 bed bungalows.

Refuse, against officer recommendation.

The Chairman invited Ms Stevens to address the Committee ahead of the report presentation.

Ms Stevens explained the report being considered was a windfall development site and was covered by a policy within the Chidham & Hambrook Neighbourhood Plan which states; ‘...that development of 10 or fewer units on windfall sites will be acceptable’, therefore any decision made would not need to take into account the tilted or non-tilted balance (which officers were currently unable to advise on following the publication of a recent Ministerial Statement on planning).

Mr Thomas presented the report. He drew attention to the Agenda Update Sheet which included an amendment to the recommendation – Defer for S106 then permit; and an amended description.

Mr Thomas outlined the application site and explained that it was located within the Parish of Chidham & Hambrook; between the settlements of Nutbourne and Broadbridge. He drew attention to the site access which would be via Drift Lane on the western side of the site.

Mr Thomas showed that the site was well enclosed, particularly to the south of the site where there was existing tree planting and neighbouring residential developments. He highlighted the proximity of the proposed development to the Chaswood Nursery site, which would adjoin on the eastern boundary edge. The Chaswood Nursery site had recently had an appeal allowed for the outline permission of 26 dwellings. 

Mr Thomas showed the Committee the proposed access arrangements and internal road layout, along with an indicative layout of the proposed nine bungalows and the tree planting that would be provided to screen the site.

Mr Thomas explained the measures proposed to achieve nitrate neutrality and confirmed they had been reviewed by Natural England who raised no objections.

Mr Thomas explained the site would be enclosed by residential development.

The following representations were made;

·       Cllr Jane Towers – Chidham & Hambrook Parish Council

·       Mr Stephen Johnson – Objector

·       Cllr Adrian Moss – CDC Member

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

In response to concerns regarding the proposed wildlife corridor; Mr Thomas confirmed the development site was located within the proposed wildlife corridor. In addition, Ms Stevens reminded the Committee that the Strategic Wildlife Corridor was a proposed policy within the emerging Local Plan and as such carried limited weight at this time. However, the proposed policy did not prevent development from taking place within the corridors, applications were carefully considered on an individual basis, taking into account any potential impact on the species known to be using the corridors. She assured the Committee no precedent would be set if they permitted development within the corridor.

On the matter of local services; Mr Thomas informed the Committee the nearest services were located in Nutbourne and Broadbridge. Ms Stevens acknowledged that not all services were within walking distance of the site, however, she advised the Committee if they chose to refuse the application on the grounds of insufficient access to services, they would have to demonstrate what made the development being considered different from the adjoining Chaswood Nursery site. The Planning Inspector had considered access to services as part of the Chaswood Nursery appeal and allowed the appeal, as it did conform with Policy 8 of the Local Plan.

On the matter of marketing the site; Mr Thomas drew the Committee’s attention to the report (para 8.38 P.126). He confirmed a B8 use would normally be required to undertake a marketing campaign, however, as there was no third-party employment at the site officers did not believe it was necessary for the purpose of Policy 26.

Ms Stevens explained in further detail the use of the land and what was permitted on site. If the application was refused it would not mean the use and storage currently offered would remain. 

On the matter of flood risk; Ms Stevens confirmed the current information available had been used to assess the flood risk at the site.

With regards to any current traffic limit on site; Mr Thomas explained there was a condition which limited the number of caravans stored on site to 90, but there was no condition to limit vehicle movements. In addition, West Sussex County Council Highways had raised no objection to the application.

In response to concerns regarding sewage capacity; Ms Stevens confirmed the Planning Policy team were working closely with Havant Borough Council and therefore the figures provided includedevelopment coming forward from Havant. Southern Water had confirmed there was capacity for this development.

On the proposed nitrate neutrality measures; Mr Thomas explained the scheme proposed mitigation measures. The calculations had been assessed by an independent assessor and reviewed by Natural England who raised no objections. Trees would be planted at a density of 100 trees/ha.

With regards to the proposed floorspace; Mr Thomas explained this matter would be determined as part of the Reserved Matters application, along with any relevant developer contributions such as affordable housing.

Mr Thomas agreed that if the application were permitted an additional condition to ensure the road could accommodate a refuse vehicle would be included.

On the matter of the proposed housing mix; Mr Thomas confirmed the Council’s housing officer had reviewed the application and was content that the proposal was in line with the required housing mix and did satisfy local need.

For clarification Ms Stevens and Mr Thomas confirmed the area of land which was included within the application site and outlined areas of land which would be used for the nitrate neutrality mitigation, also in the applicant’s ownership, which would be secured through condition.

Following debate, the Committee remained concerned about the detrimental impact the development would have the proposed wildlife Corridor; the capacity of sewage network and the loss of an employment site.

Noting officer advice, Cllr McAra proposed the application be refused, against officer recommendation, due to the loss of the commercial enterprise on site, without any evidence to demonstrate it was no longer viable enterprise  contrary to Local Plan policy 26.

Cllr Potter seconded the proposal.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of Cllr McAra’s proposal to refuse the application.

Resolved; Refuse, due to the loss of the commercial enterprise on site,

without any evidence to demonstrate it was no longer a viable enterprise, contrary to Local Plan policy 26.

*Members took a ten minute break.