Agenda item

Application for the erection of 6 no dwellings and associated works.

Mr Whitty introduced this planning application for the erection of six dwellings and associated works.  In doing so he showed members slides on the screens consisting of (a) a location plan; (b) a site plan (summary of planning history); (c) a colour site plan (proposed units); (d) a colour drainage/surface water plan (system details and ability of vehicles to turn on site); (e) photographs (various views); and (f) colour elevation drawings for specific plots. He explained that officers were recommending this back-land site proposal for approval having regard to its being an appropriate and sustainable location for a small-scale yet relatively comprehensive scheme. The principle of development having been considered acceptable, there were no material considerations which outweighed that assessment ie design and impact upon character of the surrounding area and/or neighbouring properties, drainage, highway safety, and aboricultural and ecological considerations.

The agenda update sheet contained the following entries: (a) amendments to the application; (b) further supporting information from the applicant; and (c) an amended condition 5 (drainage ditch easement).  

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

(a)  Mr C Archer (Chidham and Hambrook Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application

(b)  Mr P Barry – agent for the applicant

During the debate a majority of members expressed concerns about the application to the extent that they did not feel able to support it. The following points were mentioned:

(a)  The development was not only and obviously in-filling but it was a regrettable example of ‘garden-grabbing’.

(b)  The urban character of the scheme was inappropriate for this location of what had been designed and laid out as individual properties in large plots. It would result in an internal, land-locked group of houses which would be out of character with the area and it would constitute a pocket of high density. If permitted it would create a precedent for even more of this kind of development. 

(c)  The parish had had more than its fair share of housing in the last five years without the requisite level of infrastructure to support it. The concerns of the local parish council in this regard (as well as others) were set out on pages 72 and 73 of the agenda report.  

(d)  The continuing unresolved foul drainage problems experienced by residents (caused in large part by rainwater infiltration in an area of inferior drainage) which would be exacerbated by this development. The efficacy of the proposed arrangements was questionable.

(e)  The familiar parking congestion on The Avenue was noticeably absent from a photograph shown on the screen.

(f)   The safety to risk to children who would exit from the houses straight onto the access road.

(g)  The emerging Chidham and Hambrook neighbourhood development plan (NDP) did not envisage this site as suitable for development.

Mr Whitty and Mr Frost responded to members’ questions and comments with regard to:

(a)  The character of the area and the existing level of back-land development.

(b)  The housing allocation for the parish in the Chichester Local Plan was to be viewed as a minimum.

(c)  The expert advice received from Chichester District Council’s drainage engineer.

(d)  The parking situation in The Avenue: two visits during the day had shown a low level of parked vehicles, which was when the refuse/recycling vehicles would use the road. 

(e)  The recommended conditions did not include one for bin and bicycle storage but such a condition could be included.

(f)   The use of back-land development was not precluded by the Chichester Local Plan. This proposal was to be regarded as a windfall site and so the number of houses built would count towards the Chidham and Hambrook NDP although the NDP had already more than met its housing target. In the last two to three years most of the development in the parish had been on greenfield sites outside the settlement boundary; that would not be the case with this proposal. Whilst it was possible that if this site were to be developed the land on either side of it could subsequently be the subject of similar development proposals, the Planning Committee would consider those on their merits at the relevant time and that possibility was not relevant to the determination of this proposal.

(g)  The refusal of this application on statutory consultee grounds was not justified on the evidence. It was incumbent on members to show how on the evidence this proposal would have an adverse impact on the character of the area. The site was within Flood Zone 1 and so Policy 42 in the Chichester Local Plan was not applicable.

At the conclusion of the discussion the Planning Committee voted on the officer recommendation to defer for a section 106 agreement and then permit: three members were in support thereof and eight were against and so the application was not approved.

Members then discussed with advice from officers potential reasons for a refusal of the application. The consensus was in favour of including as reasons for refusal both adverse impact on the character of the area and inadequate foul and surface water drainage infrastructure.

Members voted first of all on whether to include infrastructure as a reason for refusal. Eight members were in favour of including this as a reason and four members were opposed.

It was then proposed by Mr Oakley and seconded by Mr Cullen that the application should be refused on the following two grounds: (1) an unacceptable level of over intensive back-land development which would harm the character of the area and (2) unsatisfactory foul and surface water proposals which it had not been shown would lead to increased flood risk elsewhere.  

The Planning Committee then voted on that proposal: on a show of hands nine members supported the proposal and three members were against it.  

Decision

Refuse for the following reasons:

(1)  The proposed development by virtue of its back-land position and the intensive nature of the development, including the noise and activity generated by the use of the access, would have an adverse impact upon the character of the surrounding area. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies 1, 33 and 40 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 and paragraphs 17, 56, 58 and 61 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(2)  Insufficient information has been submitted to demonstrate that the local drainage infrastructure would be able to accommodate the proposed development or that the foul and surface water drainage proposals would be satisfactory and would not lead to increased flood risk elsewhere. The proposal would therefore be contrary to policies 1, 40 and 42 of the Chichester Local Plan Key Policies 2014-2029 and paragraphs 17, 93, 99 and 103 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

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

[Note Mrs Kilby left the meeting just before the aforementioned vote was taken and did not return for its remainder of its duration]

[Note There was a short adjournment at the end of this item between 15:10 and 15:20]