Agenda item

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its two appendices (the second of which is available online only) and to make the following recommendations to the Council:

That the Cabinet recommends to the Council that:

(1)  The Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission (as set out in appendix 1 to the report) be approved for an eight-week consultation from 1 December 2016 to 26 January 2107, following which the Submission will be sent to the Secretary of State for examination;

(2)  The proposed responses to representations received as set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report be approved; and

(3)  Authority be delegated to the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, to enable minor amendments to be made to the document prior to and following public consultation.

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the Council:

(1)  Approves the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission (as set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report and amended by (a) the revised update sheet and (b) at the meeting) for an eight-week consultation from 1 December 2016 to 26 January 2017 following which it shall be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination.

(2)  Approves the proposed responses to the representations received (as set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report).

(3)  Delegates authority to the Head of Planning Services after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services to enable minor amendments to be made to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission prior to and following public consultation.

(4)  Approves the retention of the site to the rear of Sturt Avenue Camelsdale within the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission for examination subject to confirmation from the Environment Agency that there is no objection once the flood zone modelling has been completed.

The Cabinet considered the following material which had been circulated either with or subsequent to the agenda and which was available as paper copies at this meeting (copies attached to the official minutes): (a) the agenda report; (b) the separate appendix bundle containing appendix 1 to the report (appendix 2 was published as an online version only due to its size); and (c) a revised update sheet (replacing the original version issued).

The aforementioned revised update sheet amended (i) the text of the first and third recommendations in section 3.1 of the report; (ii) para 6.26 of the report; (iii) various paras, policy references and tables in the draft Site Allocation: Proposed Submission Development Plan Document (SAPS DPD) in appendix 1; (iv) clarified the final column in table 1.1 in the draft SAPS DPD in appendix; and (v) reported a late representation.

The report was presented by Mrs Taylor.

Ms Flitcroft, Mr Allgrove and Mr Frost were in attendance for this item.

Mrs Taylor (a) referred to the introduction section on pages 2 to 16 in the appendix bundle to explain the nature and purpose of the draft SAPS DPD; (b) summarised the chronology of the main stages in the preparation of the SAPS DPD (section 4 of the report); (c) alluded to the consultation responses and officer replies thereto (appendix 2), in particular the response by the Environment Agency with respect to the site at land to the rear of Sturt Avenue Lynchmere (paras 6.3 to 6.8 of the report); (d) the next consultation stage in December 2016 and January  2017 (on the issue of soundness) prior to submission for examination and eventual adoption in late 2017; (e) the amendments proposed by the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) at its meeting on 20 October 2016. She concluded by pointing out that the development of a site included in the SAPS DPD would be subject to consideration during the planning application process against inter alia all the relevant planning policies in the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP) such as Policy 42 (Flood Risk and Water Management).

At the end of Mrs Taylor’s remarks Mr Dignum read out the text of the extra fourth recommendation.

Ms Flitcroft drew attention to para 8) on page 1 of the revised update sheet and advised that the proposed amendment in bold to the second sentence in para 1.42 should be disregarded and that para 1.42 (page 10 of the appendix bundle) would consist solely of the first sentence.

During the debate Mrs Hardwick said that whilst she supported the inclusion of the fourth recommendation given the disquiet being felt by residents in that area, she had a residual concern regarding the Environment Agency’s (EA) comments in para 6.7 of the report that there were (which she contested) suitable alternative locations on the site for houses to be constructed. She contended for the new fourth recommendation being amended so that it contained an express statement that CDC would review the inclusion of this site after the remodelling by the EA had taken place and the result known. The gardens of the houses to the south of this site were all subject to flooding.

In reply to Mrs Hardwick, Mr Frost emphasised that the density for this site (15 dph for ten dwellings) was significantly lower than the indicative requirements in the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP) and so there was flexibility to accommodate this amount of development. He pointed out that the development management process would apply to a planning application made in respect of this site if it was part of the SAPS DPD and said that the site should be retained unless and until the EA entered an objection.   

Mr Allgrove said that if this site were to be removed from the SAPS DPD as a result of an objection made by the EA a modification would be required; in the meantime the site should remain in the SAPS DPD. Officers were liaising with the EA in order that the outstanding information would be available in time for submission of the SAPS DPD.

Mrs Hardwick pursued her point by saying that the issue of flooding concerns ought not to be left to be addressed by the local planning authority at the planning application stage. If the EA failed to give a clearly satisfactory assessment about flood risk CDC should make its own decision on whether or not the site should be included in the SAPS DPD. She was in favour of the new fourth recommendation being revised to make it incontrovertibly plain that CDC would reconsider the point after the consultation had ended.

Mr Dignum suggested that the consultation should be allowed to take place and the Cabinet and the Council consider the point thereafter. Mrs Keegan wondered if the correct approach was in fact to consider the suitability of the site for inclusion after the EA had completed and reported on the modelling work.

In reply to members Mr Allgrove advised, however, that the DPIP had agreed at its recent meeting that the SAPS DPD would not return to the Cabinet for further consideration unless a modification was required as a result of the examination. All consultation responses would be submitted as evidence to the planning inspector for the examination of the SAPS DPD. The SAPS DPD had already been subject to substantial delay and to increase that by several months in order to review the document after the Environment Agency had responded was undesirable; it would conflict with the timetable for the review of the CLP and place an extra demand on staff resources. On the balance of probabilities based on known facts this site could be developed and so officers advised against withdrawing it now from the SAPS DPD. There would be an opportunity for third parties to object to its inclusion at the examination itself.                 

Decision

At the conclusion of the debate the Cabinet voted on a show of hands by seven votes in favour of the four recommendations and none against. Mrs Hardwick abstained.

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

That the Council:

(1)  Approves the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission (as set out in appendix 1 to the agenda report and amended by (a) the revised update sheet and (b) at the meeting) for an eight-week consultation from 1 December 2016 to 26 January 2017 following which it shall be submitted to the Secretary of State for examination.

(2)  Approves the proposed responses to the representations received (as set out in appendix 2 to the agenda report).

(3)  Delegates authority to the Head of Planning Services after consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services to enable minor amendments to be made to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission prior to and following public consultation.

(4)  Approves the retention of the site to the rear of Sturt Avenue Camelsdale within the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission for examination subject to confirmation from the Environment Agency that there is no objection once the flood zone modelling has been completed.