Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

SI/18/02925/FUL - Land South Of Telephone Exchange Selsey Road Sidlesham West Sussex

Proposed private stable block and associated hard standing. New access to the highway

 

Decision:

Defer for further information.

Minutes:

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet regarding the name of the ward which should read as ‘Siddlesham with Selsey North’.

 

The following member of the public addressed the committee:

 

Mr A Harland – Parish Representative

 

During the discussion Members debated traffic volume on the road from which the site access would be located, larger vehicles accessing the site, visibility splays, the impact of new hardstanding on drainage, infilling development, the appearance of sub-dividing fields, storage of feed, potential issues of manure seepage onto the highway, the replanting of hedgerows, and whether a condition not to operate a business from the site would be appropriate.  Mrs Stevens responded that with regards to ‘infilling’ if this was a residential scheme, that would be an appropriate consideration, but it is not for an equestrian development, and provided information citing Policy 55 of the Local Plan which permits equestrian use where the criteria is met.  The Highways Authority were satisfied with the proposed access; the gate would be set back from the edge of the carriageway to allow space for vehicles to stop clear of the highway. With regards to flooding, a condition had been included that ‘discharge of washings ….or yard areas must first drain into a soakaway or treatment system’.  There would be no requirement for additional undercover space to keep feed.  Mrs Stevens added that planning permission is not required for grazing or turn horses out, and that the fencing erected on the site does not currently require planning permission, acknowledging that a condition could be added removing permitted development for further fencing to sub-divide the field.  The Environment Officer has not raised any objections regarding the muck heap but they do require a waste management plan to be submitted. In response to concerns from members about the location of the muck heap and the potential odour impacts upon neighbouring properties Mrs Stevens advised that a condition could be added to relocate the muck heap to another part of the site further away from residential properties. Mrs Stevens confirmed that the other two applications for the gypsy and traveller sites are independent of this application and there is no indication within this application that this site would be used for commercial purposes and therefore it is appropriate to include a condition stating that the site should only be used for the private keeping of horses.   

 

Further discussion included; the position of a recently installed new gate; a question regarding the installation of hardstanding and what would happen if construction of the stables does not takes place; removal of hedgerows;, connection to the bridleway network;, and future use of the stables for conversion to residential accommodation.  Mr Whitty responded that there is no dropped kerb adjacent to the gate, therefore that is likely to be unauthorised development and separately from this application, enforcement action can be taken.   Mr Whitty advised Members of the committee against employing supposition regarding future use of the building, and reminded Members with regards to the gypsy and traveller sites on appeal, these are not linked with this application.  Mr Whitty stated that he understood the concerns regarding the loss of hedgerows and equally with regards to larger vehicles turning off or onto the highway and confirmed adjustments to access the site could be required, and Mr Whitty reiterated the Highways Authority had not raised concerns. 

 

Mrs Stevens confirmed the comments from the Environment Officer relate to a buffer for the existing hedgerow and that there is no hedgerow near the stable or requirement for the stable to be set back five metres from it.  A conditions to secure a landscaping scheme and tree protection measures is recommended , but there would be some loss of vegetation. There is also a condition regarding the boundary treatment, and a rural type of boundary treatment such as post and rail fencing would be required. .  Filling-in gaps in vegetation elsewhere does form part of this planning application.  Mrs Stevens confirmed the bridleway network was accessible from Keynor Lane. There is a condition regarding the use of the building and although it could revert to agricultural use, any other use would require planning permission.  With regards to lighting, storage and disposal of waste, these matters are covered in the conditions and other matters such as the removal of permitted development to sub-divide the field could be added to the recommended conditions.

 

With regards to a question relating to the new gate, Mr Whitty confirmed it was not part of the proposal and if Members are concerned, this could be clarified by an informative on the decision. 

 

Mr Briscoe proposed that a decision be deferred pending further information regarding access from the Highways Authority as to the type vehicles which may be using the site, which is on a well-used road. This was seconded by Mr Oakley due to the number of matters and accumulated conditions discussed during the debate for which clarification was sought

 

The application was therefore deferred for further information in relation to; the use of alternative vehicles across the access and highway, the proposed planting scheme, how security of the site was proposed to be secured, to further consider re-siting of the muck heap, and for additional information about access to public bridleways.

 

Mr Whitty responded that it was his view that concerns can be dealt with by way of conditions, and that the applicant is entitled to decision within a reasonable timeframe within the process.

 

Members of the Committee took a vote on deferral.

 

Recommendation to defer decision, pending further information.

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page