Agenda item

Application for the construction of 3 no dwellings and associated works.

Mr Whitty presented this planning application for the construction of three dwellings and associated works. He described the proposal with reference to slides shown on the screens namely (a) a location plan; (b) a colour site proposal plan; (c) photographs (various views) and elevations.

The agenda update sheet reported:

(a)  the substitution of a new para 6.1 in the agenda report: the comments previously attributed to Tangmere Parish Council were in fact those of a third party;

(b)  the receipt of additional consultations/details: Environment Agency and applicant’s supporting information;

(c)  the supply of further planning assessment of the proposal with respect to the impact on heritage assets, housing land supply and waste water disposal.   

Mr Whitty advised that the recommendation was now simply one of permit ie without a deferral for a section 106 agreement.

The following members of the public addressed the Planning Committee:

(a)  Mr B Wood (Tangmere Parish Council) – parish representative objecting to the application

(b)  Mrs K Simmons – agent for the applicant

During the debate several members expressed concerns about the proposal, which included the following reasons for opposing the grant of planning permission:

(a)  The proposed development would involve the loss of what was a prominent, distinctive and well-maintained dwelling-house at the entrance or gateway to the village and would have an adverse impact on the character of the area; the site formed part of the estate on the west side of Tangmere Road.

(b)  The Policies 33 (New Residential Development) and 47 (Heritage and Design) of the Chichester Local Plan gave weight to protect the character of the area (which would be adversely harmed by this development) and the type of dwelling of which the existing property was an example. If the current dwelling-house were to be demolished (which would be regrettable) it was hard to see how similar proposals could be resisted. It was, therefore, important to hold the line by refusing this application.

(c)  The proposal would amount to overdevelopment of the site.

(d)  The doubts about the adequacy of the foul and surface water infrastructure did not favour approving the application. There was insufficient evidence that Southern Water had assessed (as opposed to not objecting to) the adequacy of foul drainage arrangements.

(e)  The parking congestion on Edwards Avenue was already noticeable and Tangmere Road was a well-used C-class road. The adverse impact of the development on these roads and there were doubts about the adequacy of on-site turning.   

Mr Whitty answered members’ questions and comments on points of detail with respect to the following matters:

(a)  The opinion of the Historic Buildings Adviser as reported in the agenda update sheet, which included the fact that planning permission would not be required for demolition (only prior approval as to the method of demolition and proposed restoration of the site).

(b)  The fact there was a varied street-scene and the character of the area would not be harmed by the proposal.

(c)  The property had not been very sympathetically extended in the past and refusal could not be justified on the basis that this was a perfectly usable property.

(d)  The land should enable on-site turning arrangements: the question was how that would be achieved and the relevant condition could be strengthened to require further details.   

(e)  The absence of an objection by Southern Water should be regarded as decisive with respect to infrastructure capacity.

(f)   The plans for this application were the submitted plans – location, site layout and indicative height and scale; typically there were few plans in the case of an outline planning application.

(g)  The details of how the demolition of this non-protected building and the restoration of the land would be achieved were not relevant matters for this application.

At the conclusion of the debate six members of the Planning Committee voted in favour of the proposal and six voted against it. Mr Hayes then exercised his casting vote in accordance with how he voted previously so that the majority in favour of approving the application was seven members in favour of it and six against it. 

Recommendation to permit with a reference to the approved plans to be included in condition 3 (no departure from plans – all aspects) agreed.