Agenda item

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendices and to make the following recommendations to the Council:

(1)  That the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission,  including the retention of the allocation to the rear of Sturt Avenue Lynchmere, and associated documents be approved for submission to the Secretary of State for examination;

(2)  That the Proposed Modifications to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission as set out in the schedule in appendix 1 be approved for submission to the Secretary of State; and

(3)  That during the examination into the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning, be given delegated authority to agree minor amendments to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document.

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

(1)  That the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission,  including the retention of the allocation to the rear of Sturt Avenue Lynchmere, and associated documents be approved for submission to the Secretary of State for examination.

(2)  That the Proposed Modifications to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission as set out in the schedule in appendix 1 be approved for submission to the Secretary of State.

(3)  That during the examination into the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, be given delegated authority to agree minor amendments to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document.

The Cabinet received and considered the agenda report and its four appendices (copies attached to the official minutes).

The report was presented by Mrs Taylor.

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

Mrs Taylor (a) summarised the consultation and examination process (section 4 and paras 6.16 and 6.17 of the report), (b) referred to appendices 1 (consultation responses proposing major modifications) and 4 (soundness tests) and (c) reviewed the situation as to the flood zone modelling work which the Environment Agency (EA) had not yet undertaken on the site to the rear of Sturt Avenue Lynchmere/Camelsdale pursuant to the resolution made by the Council meeting on 22 November 2016.  The EA’s comments on fluvial flood risk were set out in appendix 2 and summarised in para 6.6 of the report. She also reviewed the issues of groundwater flooding with the views of West Sussex County Council (WSCC) as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) (paras 6.8 to 6.10), highway safety (para 6.11) and site access (para 6.12) in the report. She explained the officers’ reasons for concluding that the site should not be removed from the Chichester Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission (SA DPD) (paras 6.7, 6.10 and 6.13 to 6.15).

Mrs Flitcroft, Mr Allgrove, and Mr Frost did not wish to add to Mrs Taylor’s introduction.

Mrs Hardwick argued for removing the site from the SA DPD. She was supported in this by Mrs N D Graves, her co-ward member for Fernhurst, whom Mr Dignum allowed to address the Cabinet. Officers responded to the points made by Mrs Hardwick and Mrs Graves. 

Mrs Hardwick’s submission included the following points:

·       The EA had not undertaken the flood zone modelling work which the Cabinet on 1 November 2016 (recommendation (4) in minute 277) and then the Council on 22 November 2016 had sought with a view to being satisfied that the EA did not object to the inclusion of the site for reason of flood risk. The EA had stated (page 38) that the remodelling work to be undertaken might result in changes to the Flood Map for the area. There was a demonstrable lack of evidence as to how the site would be categorised between the three flood zones. It was, therefore, premature to include this site within the SA DPD.

·       She quoted remarks made by Mr Dignum at that time that there was a need for a ‘robust confirmation’ by the EA of the absence of a flood risk and that this needed to be crystal clear and not ambiguous. The fourth recommendation made by the Cabinet to the Council seeking such a confirmation was a key requirement.

·       The need for robust evidence as to flood risk must be treated as a prospective requirement and not a retrospective one.

·       The entire site was at risk of groundwater flooding and the information regarding it, which the local parish council had been instrumental in making available, had only been submitted late to the LLFA and it had been unable to carry out a site-specific assessment and no site visit had taken place. A report commissioned by the developers which stated that there were no groundwater flooding issues was incorrect in the light of the response by the LLFA.

·       The fluvial flood risk information was out of date and incorrect; there could be no certainty at all as to the nature and extent of the flood risk.

·       The inclusion of the site within the SA DPD would be tantamount to a grant of planning permission in principle. It would be, therefore, a serious step to take and required clear supporting evidence. It should be noted that statutory regulations to the effect that a site allocation constituted permission in principle were expected to come into force in due course and underlined this point (even if they would not have retrospective effect).

·       The consultation response by Thames Water expressing concerns about site access was subject to compliance with certain conditions and so was tentative.

·       The assessment of the competing merits could not be carried out currently because it was not possible to weigh up, for example, the sustainability of the site and the flood risk where the evidence in respect of the latter was currently lacking.           

Mrs Graves said that she concurred completely with Mrs Hardwick.  She believed that it was premature to include the site. She commented on points of detail with regard to the site access: she and others had considerable concerns about what was being proposed in terms of its design features and that it was likely to have a detrimental urbanising impact in a rural area. A final response from Thames Water was awaited. The site was not, moreover, an example of sustainable development.

Mr Allgrove replied to the points made by Mrs Hardwick and Mrs Graves as follows:

·       There was sufficient evidence to justify the inclusion of this site within the SA DPD. Despite the absence of the EA’s flood zone modelling work, the site promoters had provided detailed information about flood risk. The site could accommodate ten dwellings. The LLFA had responded to the consultation and the further clarification which had been subsequently obtained satisfied officers that the development of the site would be safe and would not increase flooding elsewhere.     

·       The detail of the regulations as to how site allocations were to be treated in relation to a ‘permission in principle’ was unknown and it would be surprising if they had retrospective effect. It was correct that the inclusion of a site within a SA DPD was in effect an acceptance of development in principle but the detailed planning application (which had not yet been submitted) would still have to comply inter alia with the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029 (CLP).

·       It was premature to consider now points of detail such as site access, in respect of which in any event Thames Water had indicated what it would require to make the SA DPD sound with regard to this site.

·       The site was sustainable in terms of its accessibility to local facilities and also the town of Haslemere and its railway station.

·       The view of officers was that there was far more evidence in support of the inclusion of this site than was often the case.    

Mrs Taylor remarked that as with almost any site there were issues to address.  Although it was in an area prone to flood risk the CLP had policies to apply in such cases eg Policy 42 (Flood Risk and Water Management). It should be remembered that a site allocation was not a grant of planning permission and any such proposal would have to be considered in the normal way against relevant national and local planning policies and all other material planning considerations. In her judgment there was no justification for removing the site from the SA DPD. Issues as to soundness would be considered by the planning inspector at the examination.

Mr Dignum invited comments from other members of the Cabinet on what he termed was in effect a judgment call on whether this site should be included in the SA DPD.

The consensus of opinion by those members, having regard to the available evidence and the advice of officers, was that on balance the site should be included in the SA DPD.

Mr Frost said that notwithstanding the allocation of this site by the DPD was tantamount to ‘permission in principle’, this would not obviate the normal development management process for determining outline and reserved matters applications. The detail of the proposed regulations relating to ‘permission in principle’, including transitional arrangements, was unknown.  The applicant would have to comply with the exacting requirements of a technical details consent.

Mr Allgrove said that it was not known when the EA’s modelling report would be available. It was probably not going to be published before the examination into the SA DPD, which was scheduled for July 2017. 

Decision  

At the end of the discussion the Cabinet voted on a show of hands by six votes in favour of making the recommendations set out below and one against (Mrs Hardwick).

RECOMMENDED TO THE COUNCIL

(1)  That the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission,  including the retention of the allocation to the rear of Sturt Avenue Lynchmere, and associated documents be approved for submission to the Secretary of State for examination.

(2)  That the Proposed Modifications to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission as set out in the schedule in appendix 1 be approved for submission to the Secretary of State.

(3)  That during the examination into the Site Allocation Development Plan Document: Proposed Submission the Head of Planning Services, following consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning Services, be given delegated authority to agree minor amendments to the Site Allocation Development Plan Document.