Agenda item

Erection of up to 84 dwellings with associated parking, public open space, drainage and alterations to access (all matters reserved except for access).

 

Defer for S106 then permit.

Having declared a predetermination in the item Cllr S Johnson withdrew from the meeting.

 

The Chairman apologised for the short delay in recommencing the meeting, however, a point of order had been raised which required legal clarification.

 

The Chairman invited Cllr Hickson to present her point of order.

 

As a point of order Cllr Hickson requested the application be deferred on the grounds that the Agenda Update had not been made available within the legally prescribed time (five clear working days ahead of the meeting).

 

The Chairman invited Ms Golding to address the point of order. Ms Golding explained the Agenda Update Sheet was something produced ahead of every Planning Committee. She agreed there was a legal requirement for reports to be published five clear days ahead of the meeting and confirmed the application report had been published within the legally prescribed time. With regards to the Agenda Update Sheet, Ms Golding explained the very nature of planning meant further information was continually being brought forward, therefore, the Agenda Update Sheet was produced to make sure all interested parties were kept informed. She explained the updates could be given as verbal at the start of the meeting.

 

Ms Golding advised the Committee that the point of order did not stand and the Committee could continue.

 

In addition, Mrs Stevens provided further detail regarding the update to Agenda items 6, 7 & 8 and the additional legal advice which had been provided.

 

Mr Cranmer presented the report, Mr Gledhill and Mrs Meeus from West Sussex County Council Highways were also in attendance.

 

Mr Cranmer outlined the site location, which was outside the Southbourne settlement boundary. he explained the application was an outline application for 84 dwellings with all matters reserved expect access.

 

Mr Cranmer presented the proposed parameter plans, highlighting the sites proximity to the proposed wildlife corridor. He detailed the proposed drainage strategy, which had been reviewed by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) in their capacity as the Lead Flood Authority, who had raised no objection to the proposals.

 

Mr Cranmer drew attention to the Agenda Update sheet which included additional comments on the following; the application of the ‘tilted balance’; Planning Policy; Southbourne Broad Location for Development – emerging Chichester Local Plan Review Preferred Approach 2016 – 2025; Railway Crossing contribution timing; Third-party representations; a consultation response from the CDC Design officer and amendments to typographical omissions.

 

Representations were received from;

 

Cllr Amanda Tait – Southbourne Parish Council

Dr Nicholas Minter – Objector (Statement read by Iwona Defer)

Mr Ian Goddard – Objector (Hermitage Residents Group)

Mr Michael Lillywhite – Objector

Mr Ian Johnson – Agent

Cllr Oona Hickson – CDC Ward member

 

Officers responded to comments and questions as follows;

 

Mr Cranmer confirmed the  Park Homes site was residential and operated all year round. He acknowledged he had  misspoken in the presentation when he referred to it as holiday park but confirmed this had no impact on the proposed recommendation which, as set out at 2.2 of the Report, was based on it being a Park Homes site.

 

Mr Cranmer clarified the proximity of the Wildlife Corridor to the application site.

 

Responding to concerns the development would be on good agricultural land; Mr Cranmer acknowledged the concerns and agreed Natural England had rated the land as being ‘very good agricultural’. However, due to the scale of the Natural England map it was challenging to attach any degree of certainty to the specific area of land but that Officers considered the weight attached to meeting housing need was overriding.

 

Regarding land identified through the gap assessment; Mr Cranmer explained the field to the east of the site had been identified, the proposed development site was not considered due to its proximity to the built-up area and railway line.

 

Responding to the proposal of a parking survey; Mr Gledhill advised there would be little benefit in undertaking such a survey, as the proposed development would provide parking for occupiers on site, therefore it would be unlikely to have any impact on current parking constraints.

 

Ms Bell clarified the current policy position, confirming that having now being made the Southbourne Neighbourhood Plan carried full weight. She acknowledged there was a very fine line when considering the application and how the relevant policy is applied, the Council did have a four-year housing land supply, but it is very marginal and whilst Southbourne have met their development requirement, there is still a need to deliver housing within the district. Ms Bell advised members to consider the Council’s position should it be in an appeal situation and reminded them of recent appeal decisions where the council’s housing supply has been challenged.

 

Regarding the viability of the Southbourne BLD; Ms Bell reminded the Committee the emerging Local Plan had not been through examination and therefore did not carry full weight, as a result the BLD can not be used at this stage when considering the determination of the application.

 

Responding to concerns about the ecological impact; Mr Cranmer advised the Committee no concerns raised by statutory consultees. The development is expected to deliver a 43% biodiversity net gain through habit units and a 77% net gain in hedgerow units.

 

Regarding the impact on bats; Mr Cranmer explained there was a large landscape buffer and condition were included to minimise the reduction of lighting in order to mitigate impact on local bat populations.

 

Mr Cranmer informed the Committee the anticipated CIL estimate (the final figure would only be known at the Reserved Matters stage) was between £800,000 - £1,000,00; 25% of which would go to the Parish Council as they have a made Neighbourhood Plan.

 

Responding to concerns regarding the proposed housing mix; Mr Cranmer reminded the Committee this was an Outline application, the housing mix would be considered as part of the REM application.

 

On the matter of noise from the railway; Mr Cranmer explained this would be considered in detail when the REM application is submitted, until that time it is not possible to model as there is no known layout but the Councils Environmental Health Officers were content in principle.

 

Regarding the width of the road; Mr Gledhill clarified it was the verges which were being narrowed to widen the pavements, the road would not be narrowed.

 

Mr Gledhill acknowledged concerns raised regarding the validity of the Transport Assessment, however, he confirmed the transport assessment was valid. Mrs Stevens advised the Committee to not refuse the application due to highway concerns.

 

Responding to whether the 4YHLS had been tested at appeal; Mrs Stevens confirmed it had, the most appeal being the Main Road, Birdham appeal which was allowed.

 

Responding to concerns over the wastewater capacity; Mrs Stevens acknowledged the concerns; however, the statutory undertaker has raised no objection. She reminded the Committee the Council had not been successful at appeal when challenging on the grounds of sewage as they are not able to demonstrate the harm.

 

Having listened to the debate and taking advice from officers, Cllr Burton proposed the Committee refuse the application for the following reasons;

 

-       The proposed development would fall outside the settlement boundary identified within the new Neighbourhood Plan, in an area where there is no identified housing need within the Parish and therefore would be unjustified development in the countryside (officers would add the relevant policies it conflicts with).

-       No mitigation through the S106

-       Also if at appeal there may be no capacity at the Thornham Waste Water Works

 

Cllr Brookes-Harmer seconded the proposal.

 

Following a vote, the Committee voted against Cllr Burtons proposal.

 

Before moving to the report recommendation, Cllr Potter asked if Condition 8 could be amended to ensure construction traffic parked on site. Mrs Stevens confirmed this could be included.

 

The Committee then voted on the report recommendation.

 

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 set out in the report, including the amendment to condition 8.

 

*Members took a half-hour break

*Cllr Brookes-Harmer left at the conclusion of the item.