Agenda item

Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the development of up to 94 residential dwellings, new access from Lagness Road, public open space, landscaping, sustainable urban drainage and associated works including new footway and cycleway links.

Defer for S106 then permit.

Mr Bushell introduced the report. He reminded the Committee that the application had been deferred by the Planning Committee at their meeting on 12 July 2023 for the following reasons (detailed in full on page 20 of the report pack);

-       Foul drainage

-       Surface water drainage

-       Highways

-       Education

-       Lighting

Mr Bushell drew attention to paragraph 8.1 (page 48) of the report which explained that the application was a resubmission of an earlier proposal on the same site for 113 dwellings. He explained that the original application had been refused by the Council as at the time they could demonstrate a five year housing land supply (5YHLS). However, the Council were no longer able to demonstrate a 5YHLS which meant the tilted balance was now engaged in favour of allowing sustainable development.

Mr Bushell informed the Committee that since the original application the applicant had worked hard to address the areas of harm which had been identified previously, including a reduction in the number of dwellings.

Mr Bushell outlined the site location, he highlighted the neighbouring land which was in the control of the applicant and drew attention to other development sites within close proximity including Lowlands.

The Committee were shown an indicative parameter plan of the proposed layout, which included a large central open space and play area, landscaping and SuDs measures. The development would deliver 94 dwellings, no more than two storey in height, the proposed housing mix was detailed in the report on page 22.

Mr Bushell highlighted the proposed cycle and pedestrian improvements which would be delivered as part of the development.

Regarding earlier concerns about the impact of growing lighting from the adjoining Vitacress nursery. Mr Bushell informed the Committee that officers had sought advice from the Environmental Protection team who had considered the matter and proposed an additional condition which would ensure the design/layout of the development adequately mitigates any potential impact from the glasshouses.

Mr Bushell detailed the proposed access arrangements, which would include a number of improvements including the delivery of a cycle/pedestrian route identified as an aspiration in the North Mundham Neighbourhood Plan. Addressing the concerns raised by the Committee at the previous meeting Mr Bushell explained that West Sussex County Council had undertaken a site visit and were satisfied that the proposed mitigation measures were acceptable and raised no objection.

On the matter of school places, Mr Bushell informed the Committee that in their original calculation WSCC had included two significant pre application developments. They had since removed these figures, rerun their calculations and had now confirmed the local school did have capacity to accommodate any children from the proposed development.

Mr Bushell drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included; additional third party objections; additional supporting information from the agents and an amendment to the recommendation to include two additional conditions, 28 and 29.

Representations were received from;

Cllr David Maclean – North Mundham Parish Council

Cllr Simon Oakley – WSCC Member

Mr Jonathan Denby – Objector

Mrs Jane Smith – Objector

Mr Ian Chivers – Objector

Mr Richard Boulter (Ford to Hunston Canal Society) – Supporter

Ms Lisa Jackson – Agent

Before opening the debate, Cllr Todhunter read out a statement from Cllr Betts.

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

On the matter of planting along the eastern boundary; Mr Bushell agreed that whilst a reserved matter, the planting would include a mixture of evergreen and deciduous vegetation. In addition, the developers had stated that any trees planted would be a minimum of 4m in height.

Responding to concerns of ‘skyglow’ from the glasshouses; Mr Bushell explained what ‘skyglow’ was. The Institute of Lighting Professionals (IPL) did provide guidance, which had been considered by the Environmental Protection, on how it can be managed. Mr Bushell informed the Committee that the lights within the glasshouses were in operation from 4am – 4pm. He reminded the Committee that the layout was indicative and could be reconfigured in order to address any potential lighting impact which may be identified at the reserved matters stage.

In addition, Mr Bushell informed the Committee that the lights had been in operation since 2018 and there was no evidence (no complaints to Environmental Health) to suggest that they were having a negative impact.

On the matter of foul drainage; Mr Bushell acknowledged the concerns raised. However, he explained that the issues raised were existing issues and were the responsibility of Southern Water to resolve and not the applicants. As the statutory consultee Southern Water had raised no objection to the development.

Regarding highway contributions; Mr Bushell confirmed the developer had agreed to pay the higher contribution. In addition; WSCC as the highway authority had made no objection to the development.

Regarding education; Mr Bushell reiterated that WSCC as the Education Authority had confirmed the local school could accommodate any required school places from the development. He agreed that if the application was deferred then the situation could change. 

On the matter of surface water; Ms Waters, Interim Flood Risk Manager, WSCC, explained that WSCC had reviewed the submitted supporting documents and flood risk assessment, and were satisfied with the proposals which would be secured through conditions. The calculations used were very precautionary and took into account climate change figures, they showed that the runoff from the site would be reduced once developed as the current discharge rates were higher and not managed. Any pooling on the site currently was most likely due to soil compaction and not being able to soak away.

Mr Bushell advised the Committee that if they chose to defer the application, there was no guarantee that the applicant would grant any extension of time. He explained the applicant had already agreed to an extension of time to allow the application to come back to Committee.

Following a vote, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for S106 then permit.

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