Construction of 50 dwellings, landscaping, associated works and access from the A259.
Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit.
BO/17/03148/FUL - Land North Of Highgrove Farm Main Road Bosham West
Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to further correspondence received from Southern Water concerning detailed network modelling as part of a network growth review that had been undertaken, deletion of condition 22 and informative 8, and one additional informative (connection to the public sewerage system).
The following members of the public addressed the Committee:
· Ms C Pexton – Parish Representative
· Mr R Pratt – Objector
· Mrs J Morris – Objector
· Mr H MacKenzie Wilson – Objector
· Mr J Rank - Objector
· Mr J Nelson – Objector
· Mr I Johnson – Agent
· Mrs P Plant – CDC Member
Mr Harris responded to a number of comments made by the speakers. The site was allocated for a development of 50 dwellings in the emerging Site Allocation Development Plan Document (DPD). The DPD Inspector’s report, which included consideration of the site selection process, concluded that it was an acceptable site for development. With regard to foul sewage, officers were aware of incidents of sewer surcharging in Bosham during very wet periods. The results of additional detailed network modelling carried out by Southern Water showed that no reinforcement was required to accommodate the flows from the development. The Local Planning Authority had no evidence to rebut Southern Water’s findings that the development could be accommodated without worsening the existing situation. With regard to surface water, it was accepted that the site did not drain well, but landowners had a duty to drain their land. The applicant was required to demonstrate a safe and satisfactory means of draining the land and had worked up a scheme that demonstrated green field rates could be maintained. Winter ground water monitoring, required by proposed condition 5, had already been undertaken and therefore this aspect of condition 5 was no longer required. The details of a planting scheme along the site frontage and other boundaries would be dealt with by way of a planning condition, with this seeking to strike a balance between softening views of the development but not hiding it. Some permeability was required to minimise the loss of views towards the South Downs National Park. Any planning applications received in respect of adjoining land would be considered on their own merits, and the fact that some adjoining land is proposed to be allocated for development in the emerging Local Plan Review should be given no weight in this case given that the Plan is at such an early stage of preparation.
Mr Harris answered questions and comments made by members. Given the advanced stage of the DPD which was close to adoption, the development was not premature and was intended to meet the numbers in the current Local Plan. Street lighting had been originally proposed then deleted from the application. It may be that some low level bollard lighting would be required in some communal areas, and this would be controlled by condition. The SUDS features at the front of the site would be planted-up and were capable of being attractive features in their own right. The proposed buffer planting outside the eastern boundary of the site was within the applicant’s control and would be the subject of obligations in the Section 106 Legal Agreement. Officers would ensure that the requirements in terms of the timely provision of play equipment were programmed properly.
A proposal to defer the application so that officers could request Southern Water to attend the next meeting to explain their findings following a more detailed network modelling as part of a network growth review was not carried on a vote by the Committee.
Defer for a Section 106 agreement with amended condition 5 and removal of condition 22 and informative 8 then Permit agreed.