(See report at agenda item 5 (pages 15 to 22) of the Cabinet agenda of 1 November 2016, pages 1 to 68 in the supplement to the agenda, pages 1 to 432 in the (online only) supplement to the agenda and pages 1 to 2 in a further supplement to the agenda)
RECOMMENDED BY THE CABINET
1) That the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission (as set out in appendix 1 to the report) and amended by (a) the revised update sheet and (b) at the meeting, be approved for an eight-week consultation from 1 December 2016 to 26 January 2107, following which it shall 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, 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) That the retention of the site to the rear of Stuart Avenue, Camelsdale be approved 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.
Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved these recommendations to the Council. Mrs Taylor introduced the report, encouraging those who had concerns or objections to submit their comments as part of the consultation between 1 December 2016 and 26 January 2017, following which the DPD and any minor changes would be submitted for independent Examination by the Secretary of State through the Planning Inspectorate.
There was concern regarding the re-allocation of the site at 41 Terminus Road, Chichester to employment as a result of the restrictive covenant regarding residential development and at the loss of student accommodation and the education facility. West Sussex County Council had put the site forward as it was no longer required for educational purposes.
A number of members had concerns about the proposed allocation site Land to the rear of Sturt Avenue, Lynchmere, relating to environmental constraints, flooding, drainage, traffic and access.
Mrs Hardwick had visited the site and met with residents of Camelsdale, represented by Mr Rait (who had posed the question earlier in this meeting), and she was concerned that there were too many unresolved issues that inclusion of the site would make the Development Plan Document (DPD) unsound. Mrs Graves added that the site had been discounted in the past as the proposed access route was narrow. Both Mrs Graves and Mrs Hardwick had raised objections about previous planning applications due to highways issues and these had been turned down.
Mr Oakley continued that the statutory consultees - West Sussex County Council, Thames Water and Natural England - had not responded to the consultation and suggested a need to consider other local community evidence that questioned the suitability of this site.
Mr Shaxson had visited the site 15 years ago when it had been judged unsuitable for development due to flooding issues. The development nearby in Waverley district may limit the ability for water soakaway. A figure of 10 dwellings had been allocated to Lynchmere. If the Environment Agency (EA) reviewed their modelling and this site was removed from the DPD then an alternative site would need to be found.
Mr Dignum advised that the Local Plan covered a 17 year period and included provision for nearly 8000 houses. No objections had been received from WSCC, Surrey County Council, Thames Water and Natural England. Mrs Hardwick and Mrs Graves had provided anecdotal evidence regarding planning applications received in the past on this site. Although part of the site was shown to be in a flood zone the remainder of the site would be adequate to site 10 houses. As a result of concerns at the Development and Infrastructure Panel and at Cabinet a fourth recommendation had been added that the retention of the site be approved subject to approval from the Environment Agency following flood zone modelling works that there was no objection to this site in the DPD.
He advised further that even if the site remained in the DPD individual planning applications would still need to be submitted to satisfy the Planning Committee that there were no flood risks. Current planning policy needed to be taken into account in considering planning applications and not previous iterations.
Mr Oakley asked whether, if the Lynchmere site was found at examination to be unsuitable due to potential flooding, the whole DPD would be found unsound. Mrs Taylor responded that in that instance the Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State could request that a modification be made to the DPD. However, if the site was removed following a decision made at Council today the developer could challenge the Council’s decision.
Mr Barrow supported the Leader’s comments regarding the addition of the fourth recommendation. There was support for leaving the site in the DPD and relying on the EA remodelling and expert advice to allow the Inspector to make a final decision.
Mr Dunn proposed that recommendation four be deleted, which was supported by Mrs Apel. Mr Shaxson queried this proposal and offered an alternative amendment which was subsequently agreed by Mrs Apel and seconded by Mrs Neville. Mr Shaxson proposed that recommendation four be deleted and that an alternative fourth recommendation be added ‘That the proposed allocation site Land to the rear of Sturt Avenue, Lynchmere, be removed from the Development Plan Document’.
On the proposal being put to the vote, it was declared lost.
The original recommendations were then put to the vote and declared carried.
1) That theSite AllocationDevelopment PlanDocument: ProposedSubmission (as setout inappendix 1to thereport) andamended by(a) therevised update sheetand (b)at themeeting, beapproved foran eight-week consultation from 1December 2016to 26January 2107, followingwhich it shallbe sentto the Secretary ofState forexamination;
2) The proposedresponses torepresentations received(as set outin appendix 2to theagenda report)be approved; and
3) Authority bedelegated tothe Headof PlanningServices, afterconsultation with theCabinet Memberfor PlanningServices, toenable minoramendments to bemade tothe SiteAllocation DevelopmentPlan Document:Proposed Submission priorto andfollowing publicconsultation.
4) That theretention ofthe siteto therear ofSturt Avenue,Camelsdalebe approved withinthe SiteAllocation DevelopmentPlan Document: Proposed Submissionfor examination,subject toconfirmation fromthe Environment Agencythat thereis no objectiononce theflood zonemodelling has been completed.