Agenda item

Application for the demolition of existing redundant glasshouses and associated buildings; construction of new hospice with 18 bedroom in-patient unit and day hospice with associated external stores, cafe, shop, offices car parking and landscaping; new section of footway linking site to the A259 together with associated enhancements to pedestrian crossing facilities.

[Note During the course of this agenda item the Remembrance Day two-minute silence was observed between 11:00 and 11:02]

 

Mr Harris presented this planning application for (a) the demolition of existing redundant glasshouses and associated buildings, (b) the construction of a new hospice with 18 bedroom in-patient unit and day hospice with associated external stores, café, shop, offices, car parking and landscaping and (c) a new section of footway linking the site to the A259 together with associated enhancements to pedestrian crossing facilities. 

 

He described the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens namely (a) a location plan (the principal features of and nearby to the site were identified); (b) an aerial photograph (with relevant details close to the site such as fields and roads identified); (c) the site/ application plan for this proposal (the details of the scheme were explained); (d) colour pictures of the elevation details; (e) highway works plan; (f) colour images illustrating the massing of the existing and proposed buildings; (g) four colour photographs of the existing condition of the site sent by the applicant to the members of the Planning Committee under cover of a letter dated 6 November 2015; (h) colour photographs with different views of the local roads including the A259 and Walton Lane.

 

The agenda update sheet reported:

 

(a)  The amendment of the final line of para 8.58 of the report (page 24 of the agenda papers) namely that ‘refuse’ should be substituted for ‘permit’ so as to read ‘the recommendation to refuse is justified and proportionate.’. 

 

(b)  The request made to the Secretary of State for the Department of Communities and Local Government for the application to be called in for determination in the event that the Planning Committee was minded to approve the same contrary to the officer’s recommendation.  

 

(c)  The consequential need for a resolution to permit the application, if the Planning Committee was so minded, to take the form of ‘Defer for referral to the Secretary of State and, in the event of no call-in, then permit (with appropriate conditions)’.

 

(d)  The additional comments submitted by Southern Water relating to sewage disposal (officers had invited a representative to attend this meeting but no-one had been available).

 

(e)  The additional supporting information supplied by the applicant relating to traffic impact, car parking, foul water and site ownership.

 

(f)   The comments by officers on the applicant’s contentions regarding the prospect of the site being available for housing development as proposed in the emerging Bosham Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2029 (BPNP).  

 

(g)  The further third party representations received namely four additional third party support, one additional third party other (death rates at the applicant’s existing premises) and the information sent to Planning Committee members. 

 

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

 

(a)  Mr A Johnstone (the chairman of Bosham Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application

 

(b)  Mr O James – objector

 

(c)  Mrs C Pexton – objector

 

(d)  Mr J Course – objector

 

(e)  Mrs A Tuck – supporter

 

(f)   Mr S Stoddard – supporter

 

(g)  Mrs E Spence – supporter

 

(h)  Mr P White – agent for the applicant

 

Mrs P Plant, one of the two CDC members for the Bosham ward, and who issued a red card in respect of this matter on the grounds of an exceptional level of public interest, addressed the Planning Committee in objection to this application.  

 

During the debate the main points made for and against the application were as follows:

 

(a)  The high esteem in which St Wilfred’s Hospice (SWH) was held for its outstanding work was recognised by everyone and was an incontrovertible fact. The role of the Planning Committee was to assess the application in terms of national and local planning policy and material planning considerations, not the innate merits of SWH.

 

(b)  The wastewater issues were a cause for major concern in Bosham and they had not been assuaged by Southern Water’s replies. There was a legitimate doubt as to the degree of confidence that the mitigation measures would be implemented, which raised doubt about the sustainability of the development. The alternative view was that it would be very difficult to refuse the proposal for foul drainage reasons.

 

(c)  The traffic and parking consequences in Walton Lane as a result of this scheme were likewise an unresolved issue; parking congestion on SWH’s existing site in Donnington and in the surrounding roads did not bode well for what was felt to be a likely replication on the busy but narrow Walton Lane leading from the A259 and the response from West Sussex County Council Highways (WSCCH) had not reassured local people. The contrary view was that a lack of objections by WSCCH would make it difficult to oppose the development on highways/transport grounds. 

 

(d)  The safety of pedestrians was also an issue in view of the lack of a footpath in Walton Lane and the scheme proposed only the creation of a short section of path from the site to the A259.

 

(e)  The existence of major policy conflicts between the proposal on the one hand and the Chichester Local Plan and the emerging BPNP on the other hand.  As with many neighbourhood development plans, Bosham Parish Council had devoted considerable time and effort in preparing the BPNP and this should be respected. The BPNP identified this site for housing and was now with the examiner; having reached this stage it should be accorded considerable weight. Para 6.14 of the agenda report for this application was important to note in terms of the weight to be accorded to it. The BPNP recognised housing to be a priority and it should be remembered that housing numbers were a minimum.

 

(f)   The loss of the BPNP housing allocation for this site by virtue of the hospice development being permitted would be offset by the housing proposed for the current hospice site in Donnington in the event that the next planning application on the agenda (D/15/ 01583/OUT) were to be permitted.

 

(g)  The potential intervention of the Secretary of State in order to determine this application in the event that the Planning Committee was minded to permit it would usefully enable the controversial issues involved to be addressed at a higher level.

 

(h)  The question as to whether the proposal amounted to ‘major development’ for the purposes of para 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) divided opinion among members, just as did the question whether the applicant needed to establish the existence of exceptional circumstances and that it was in the public interest to permit the development. The development with buildings up to two and-a-half or even three storeys would be a very significant scale of development in the AONB and ought not to be permitted. AONBs required a certain amount of depth and scale to sustain them and the arable fields in the immediate area of the site should be recognised as contributing to this AONB’s setting in the countryside.

 

(i)    The adverse impact on the AONB from the current state of the site was relevant. It could be argued that the housing development allocated in the draft BPNP would amount to a major development and be harmful to the AONB, perhaps more so than the hospice. It was questionable both that the hospice was any more a major development than the 23 houses envisaged in the BPNP and that permission would be given for that number of houses in the AONB. The character of the area (primarily flat arable fields) within the immediate AONB was unremarkable; it might in fact be said that that the northern border of the AONB in general had been significantly degraded over the years by development – that was certainly true of this site, a situation which could be exacerbated if the lawful use of the site for agricultural purposes were to be recommenced. The absence of an objection by Chichester Harbour Conservancy was significant.

 

(j)    The site was and would be well-screened. There were bus and rail links with Chichester. It was a sustainable and suitable site for a hospice.

 

(k)  The nature of the extant development on the land (for horticultural and not agricultural use) meant that it could be viewed as a brownfield and not (as officers advised) greenfield land. Moreover it was understood that there had been an industrial use of the units on it in the past, notwithstanding officers’ advice that the planning history did not support that. The eighth of the core land-use planning principles in para 17 of the NPPF encouraged the effective use of previously developed land.

 

(l)    The proposed use should be viewed as sustainable development and in that case consideration had to be given to Policy 45 (Development in the Countryside) in the Chichester Local Plan. Having regard to the three criteria to be satisfied in Policy 45 and paras 19.26 and 19.28, this proposal was compliant with it. 

 

(m) The planning policy position was clear and on that ground the application should be refused: the Planning Committee had a duty to implement the recently adopted Chichester Local Plan and ought not to be undertaking a critique of it. Refusal of the application was also justified having regard to the planning merits and rules and the current stage of the BPNP.

 

During the debate Mr Harris and Mr Frost answered members’ questions and comments on points of detail with respect to following matters among others:

 

(a)  The complaints by Bosham residents about the distressing sewage problems in recent years and which were continuing were acknowledged. It was regrettable that Southern Water had been unable to provide an officer to attend this meeting and explain the solution set out the agenda update sheet. In Bosham the issue was not that the local wastewater treatment works were unable to cope with additional flows (unlike at Apuldram and Tangmere) once they arrived there but instead (a) the means and at what rate it reached there and (b) infiltration of the system during heavy rain. Southern Water was well aware of this.  It was a fundamental planning principle that the applicant was not required to remedy pre-existing infrastructure problems but it had to ensure that if permitted the development did not exacerbate them. On the evidence a refusal of planning permission related to foul drainage would not be reasonable; suitable conditions could be imposed as required.  The site was not currently connected to the public sewer network.  Whilst members’ lack of confidence in Southern Water’s advice was understood, the latest solution had been carefully considered at a high level within the organisation.

 

(b)  The planning legislation definition of agriculture included horticulture (the previous use for this site) and so this site unambiguously did not constitute previously developed land and was greenfield land.

 

(c)  The BPNP housing allocation for this site and other sites within the parish was addressed in para 8.9 of the agenda report. It was a subjective judgment as to the harm to the AONB that might be caused by up to 25 houses on that site. There was no certainty that the site would be developed for housing as the BPNP adoption process was not yet complete and the planning merits of any submitted application for that use would be duly considered.

 

(d)  The reference to Policy 45 in the Chichester Local Plan was misconceived in that the three criteria did not fall to be considered because the development could not be categorised as meeting an ‘essential, small scale, and local need’. There was a high threshold to cross to meet the criteria and that was not satisfied in this case.  

 

(e)  The care with which proposed development in the AONB should be considered was demonstrated very clearly in paras 115 and 116 of the NPPF. The fact that the tests were very difficult to satisfy was evident from the use of ‘exceptional’ in para 116 (examples of which within Chichester District were cited). Chichester Harbour was the second smallest AONB in England and was a precious resource that had to be carefully safeguarded. The site was clearly within the AONB albeit it was not necessarily its most attractive part.

 

(f)   The rationale for a call-in by the Secretary of State remained to be seen but the focus was more likely perhaps to relate to the BPNP and the BPNP process generally. It was important for members to support a neighbourhood development plan, in particular where (as here) it had been through a long process with local community involvement and the site had been retained in the BPNP. In such a case it could be said that to permit this application would be premature and prejudicial to the BPNP.

 

(g)  The weight to be accorded to a neighbourhood development plan increased as it made progress through each stage of the process. The BPNP had reached the examination, which was an advanced stage. National guidance stated that once a neighbourhood development plan had been the subject of consultation by the local planning authority (as was the case here) it attracted significant weight as a material consideration and a decision on a planning application which ran counter to it could be viewed as being prejudicial to it.

 

(h)  The Strategic Environmental Appraisal process had been followed during the preparation of the BPNP. 

 

(i)    The view that the loss of housing on this site by virtue of permitting this application would or could be compensated by permitting the next planning application on the agenda (D/15/01583/OUT) was not a correct approach to adopt. Bosham and Donnington parishes each had separate housing allocations and the two should not be conflated.

 

(j)    The BPNP was entitled to allocate this site for housing notwithstanding that (even if it were the case) there had been no consultation with the landowner about that form of development. Officers were in fact aware that the site had been previously promoted for development. This application should not be determined in a way that would either predetermine the BPNP’s outcome or would seem to undermine it.

 

(k)  The outstanding issues with this application had been addressed in meetings with officers over a number of months but it had not been possible to resolve them.   

 

At the conclusion of the debate the Planning Committee voted first of all with respect to the officer recommendation that the application should be refused. That recommendation was not carried: five members were in favour of refusal and nine were against it. 

 

A proposal was then made by Mr Dunn for the application to be deferred for referral to the Secretary of State and, in the event of no call-in, then to be permitted with appropriate conditions. The proposal was seconded by Mr Plowman and was carried on a vote being taken: nine members were in favour of the proposal and five members were against it.

 

Decision 

 

Defer for referral to the Secretary of State and, in the event of no call-in, then to permit with appropriate conditions.

 

[Note This decision was contrary to the planning officer’s recommendation]

 

[Note At the end of this application there was a short adjournment from 11:31 to 11:46]