Agenda item

Demolition of the existing building and the construction of 6 no. flats with associated car parking and external works.

Defer for S106 then permit

Mr Thomas presented the report and explained the application was for the demolition of the existing building and the construction of six flats with associated parking and external works. He drew attention to the agenda update sheet which included additional third-party representations.

Mr Thomas outlined the site location, which was within the Chichester Settlement boundary. The site was currently occupied by a single detached dwelling set back from Brandy Hole Lane. Mr Thomas highlighted the current parking arrangements and vehicular access. He drew attention to an existing planting buffer between the property and Brandy Hole Lane; however, this was in the ownership of a neighbouring property.

Mr Thomas highlighted a property to the west of the application site which had recently been awarded planning permission for a new dwelling and outlined comparisons between the sites in terms of size and scale.

The Committee were shown the proposed site plan and elevations. In officer opinion the proposed building was in keeping with the area. Mr Thomas confirmed that a landscaped front garden would be retained along with the current access arrangements, however, the parking provision would be moved to the rear of the property to reduce the perception of parking at the front.

A full landscaping condition was proposed, along with a condition to protect existing trees and shrubs on site.

The following representations were made;

Cllr Jeremy Hunt – West Sussex County Council Member

Mr Chris Purdy – Agent

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

With regards to the number of proposed parking spaces; Mr Thomas confirmed there were nine proposed parking spaces.

On the matter of the visibility; Mr Thomas explained the hedgerow located within the visibility splay was on land owned by WSCC. He highlighted the comments made by WSCC Highways (p.23-24) which confirmed the hedge would not need to be removed but would need to be maintained by cutting back.

On the matter of bin storage; Mr Thomas explained full details of the proposed bin storage would be secured through condition. He advised it would be most likely that the development would be serviced by large bins as opposed to individual wheelie bins for each property.

Mr Thomas showed the Committee how residents from the dwelling would be able to access the footway which was located on the south side of Brandy Hole Lane.

In response to concerns regarding lighting; Miss Smith explained Condition 18 (page 40) had been proposed as part of the recommendation to manage external lighting. It was officer opinion that light spillage from the property would not be significantly different from current use.

With regards to the Character Appraisal submitted by the Resident’s Association; Mr Thomas confirmed the appraisal was not a material consideration.

On the matter of wastewater; Ms Stevens advised the Committee that the waste water would be collected at the Apuldram waste water treatment plant. She explained that Southern Water were not a statutory consultee for the application due to the number of units  being proposed (less than 10), based on the policies and guidance currently in place there would be no justification for them to refuse the application.

In response to concerns that a precedent may be set for similar developments; Miss Smith advised the Committee that they must consider the application in front of them. She reminded them that the council did not have a five-year housing land supply (5YHLS), therefore the tilted balance is applied. In officer opinion there is no significant harm as the proposed building was in keeping with the area and would look like a single dwelling from the outside.

With regards to the period of time between validation and coming to Committee; Ms Stevens explained there were a number of factors which had delayed the application (none of which were the fault of the applicant); however, the main reason was due to the requirement for nitrate mitigation shortly after validation.

On the matter of the 5YHLS and the recent Ministerial Statement; Ms Stevens explained why the application had not been deferred (as had happened at the previous Committee meeting) and has been recommended to permit.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to defer for S106 then permit

Resolved; defer for S106 then permit subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report.

*Members took a ten-minute break

*Cllr McAra left the meeting at 11.40am