Agenda item

All outstanding Reserved Matters for the erection of 73 residential
dwellings with associated parking, landscaping, informal open space and
associated works on Parcel P2.A, pursuant to permission 14/04301/OUT
and approval of the West of Chichester Residential Architectural Design
Strategy (August 2019, ref CB_70_068 Rev J), in compliance with
condition 27 of permission 14/04301/OUT

Defer

Miss Bell introduced the application.

Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to an amendment to the drawing numbers in the conditions and drawing plans table shown on pages 58, 59 and 60 of the report to ensure consistency through minor changes, and the deletion of a duplicate drawing.  A further verbal update was provided relating to an amendment to the materials for plot 29, a change to condition 10 also relating to materials, and a recommendation for roadways and parking spaces to be permeable or non-permeable under condition 13, in regards to surface water drainage.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Julian Joy - Parish Representative

Ms Valerie Briginshaw – Objector

Mr Nicholas Billington – Agent

Mr Richard Plowman – Chichester District Council Member

Mrs Clare Apel - Chichester District Council Member

Mr Adrian Moss - Chichester District Council Member

During the discussion members sought clarification on a number of points.  Regarding the over-arching principles, Mr Whitty responded that both the City Council and the District Council had declared a climate emergency which would be given due weight going forward in decisions taken by officers and Members, but reminded the Committee that planning decisions must be taken in accordance with the adopted Local Plan.  The Climate Emergency would influence the emerging local plan and it was a material consideration to take account of in determining planning applications.  However, the starting point was the current Local Plan and the fact that outline permission had already been granted on this site, it was not reasonable to return to matters which were dealt with at the outline stage.  Mr Whitty added that the developer had recently heard the Committees views on the overall residential Design Strategy and following a number of meetings with developers, officers had been able to encourage them to go further than the developers considered was necessary by the policy.  Mr Whitty advised the Committee, that should the applicant go to appeal, the inspector may consider that they did not need to go beyond the policy, as they had currently agreed.  Mr Whitty confirmed that officers believed they achieved a better result in terms of sustainability than the current policy required.

Miss Bell responded that there was an outline planning permission which included almost forty conditions, a Section 106 agreement and the recommendation before the Committee.  The report also included a number of Discharge of Conditions applications and more had been received since the publication of the report.  All conditions had time ‘triggers’ by when they must be complied with.  Miss Bell clarified that it was possible to consider a reserved matters application on a parcel of land, whilst simultaneously discharging and considering conditions on the outline plan with details reviewed by officers on a continuous basis.  On the matter of sewage, this was dealt with in the outline permission which provided choices, and the developer was required to inform the Council of their decision regarding which option had been chosen.  A requirement of the Section 106 agreement was for an Infrastructure Steering Group to be established, which related to off-site highway work.  Access was fully considered as part of the outline application. Miss Bell confirmed that all amendments sought and required by West Sussex County Council Highways had been discussed with the developer and all achieved, apart from a further section of pavement that Highway officers would have preferred.   Miss Bell responded with regards to solar panels, the details would be dealt with through the outline condition relating to sustainability.  Miss Bell drew the Committees attention to the conditions dealing with hours of construction and movement of construction vehicles, and a further condition which dealt with access, all of which were covered in the outline application.  Miss Bell also highlighted some elements which were included in the Section 106 with regards to the routing of construction vehicles.

Miss Bell clarified that archeologists were on site but this was not an issue as is outside the parcel of land being discussed and on another parcel of the site (which will be subject to a future REM application).  With regards to the ecological management plan and control matters related to the garden fences backing on to the woodland, the Section 106 agreement required the applicant to submit a management plan for all areas of the site.  The applicant was currently considering triple parking on a number of the plots, with the need to balance delivery of the houses and efficient use of land and parking on the site.  Miss Bell confirmed that a condition could be added for bird boxes for nesting birds.  Miss Bell further confirmed that boundary treatment was predominantly hedging with some brick-walling. ‘Any other points of access’ could also be added as part of the condition relating to emergency access bollards to ensure appropriate control.  The electric charging points required through the outline permission related only to the phase one 750 dwellings, and further electric charging point provision would be considered further for phase two outline planning application.  Miss Bell iterated the solar panels were proposed be installed on roofs within 25 degrees south, exceeding the requirements in the proposed design.

During a further discussion members sought clarification on a number of points.  In response to the question of who considered the quality of the properties, Miss Bell explained this was for consideration as part of the reserved matters application.  The discharge of the condition application would deal with the finer details such as the manufacturers of materials, and would ensure tones were complimentary to each other.  In regards to the trees, Miss Bell confirmed an assessment had not been carried in relation to the number of Ash trees, and suspected that a management company would be established to look after matters such as the trees.  The applicant had confirmed that in regards to the internal roads, West Sussex County Council would not be requested to adopt them and the aforementioned management company would take this responsibility, but roads would be constructed to ‘adoptable standards’.  There is a separate application for the construction management plan and construction access, as outlined in the planning history, for the discharge of condition 5 on the outline planning application.  Miss Bell confirmed the word ‘consider’ was used in relation to solar panels in the Design Strategy for all of the phases, and the detail would be provided for each separate parcel.  Miss Bell explained that condition 31 in the outline planning permission related to the lighting strategy, and permitted development rights in relation to lighting for houses could be removed and therefore owners would be required to submit an application if they wished to install any external lighting.

Mr McAra returned at 10.50am.

During a further discussion members sought clarification on a number of points.  Miss Bell confirmed the provision and detail of solar panels would be dealt with via condition 28 of the outline planning application.  Mr Whitty responded with regards to the transformer capacity for the fitting of further vehicle recharging points, that it was understood that the developer would provide the transformers in consultation with the provider to meet demand, and in future further demand would be the responsibility of the service provider.  In relation to broadband, the developer was required to install ducting for this purpose along with infrastructure for other services under condition 29.  In regards to the dispersalof housing type (owned/shared ownership/affordable rented) the Supplementary Planning Document requirement was for groups of no more 14 affordable dwellings, which was considered a reasonable mix, and housing officers were satisfied with this.  

A proposal was made to defer a decision on the planning application until further details and information was available in regards to climate change requirements, agreement of the management construction and environmental management plan was in place, all issues resolved by the Infrastructure Steering Group, and a decision made in relation to sewage disposal requirements.  Mr Whitty responded that the detail of individual matters, were usually dealt with by way of conditions.  Mr Whitty explained that not having the management construction and environmental management plan, would not interfere with a decision on the current planning application, the Infrastructure Steering Group dealt with off-site highway matters and how sewage is routed should also not determine a decision.  Therefore, Mr Whitty confirmed he would not advise deferring a decision on such grounds as this may put the Council at risk of an appeal.  In response to further clarification sought regarding matters internal to the site, Mr Whitty confirmed that the Committee could choose to defer a decision.  The initial proposal was not seconded.  A new proposal was put forward to defer a determination in order for negotiations to take place regarding any further potential propositions from the developer for increased measures to limit environmental impact, and to resolve outstanding on-site highway issues.  Mr Whitty also suggested that the proposal could include a County Council Highways officer be present at the planning meeting to provide direct information to Members on this application.  This was agreed by the Member making the proposal, should the proposal be carried.  The proposal was seconded and a vote was taken.

Recommendation to Defer for further information/negotiation regarding sustainability and on site highway matters, and attendance of West Sussex County Council Highways at the next Planning Committee.

Members took a thirty minute lunch break.