Agenda item

Erection of 6 no. flats with associated parking, bin and cycle store, landscaping and open space (consistent with scheme approved under 16/00444/FUL).

REFUSE

Mr Power introduced the application.

Additional information was provided on the Update Agenda Sheet regarding the corrected name of the applicant, additional relevant planning history, amended conditions relating to no occupation prior to vehicular access construction, or until secure cycle parking spaces have been provided and no external illumination permitted other than in accordance with a lighting scheme having been submitted and approved.

Further verbal updates were provided regarding new and amended conditions in relation to litter control, requirement for bird/boxes/nesting bricks, reference to West Sussex County Council Highways Parking Guidance 2019, on the matter of contaminated land, to ensure the proposal would not impact on the integrity of the remediation as previously permitted, and internet provision.

The following member of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Roger Owers – Objector

During the discussion Members debated the previous permission granted and now lapsed, the change of context to the current time related to the setting, the high density nature of the site, requirement of piling works, contamination, broadband limitations, loss of trees, limitations of new tree planting due to adjacent treatment works, the current opportunity for recreational activity on the site, the proposed limited buffering of proposed development from the reduced open space and the design of the spine road with a pinch point and the effect of parking spaces near to the location.  Members further discussed the lack of amenity around the proposed development, disruption to local residents during the construction process, views that the development should have been built when other adjacent plots were under construction, and the number of written objections received by the Council.

Mr Power responded that the density was not out of keeping with the location, the proposed conditions dealt with issues regarding contamination and broadband.  The remaining open space would still be of considerable size and  the remaining provision of open space would comply with Local Plan policy.  The Construction Management Plan could control the impact of piling works to neighbouring amenity, as to could the storage of construction  materials and any clearing/tidying of site could be controlled by this condition.  Mr Whitty added that piling works would be part of the material considerations and with regards to climate emergency, policy 40 of the current Local Plan has been taken into consideration.  In relation to the delay in constructing the proposed development and lapsed permission from 2016, this was a decision of the developer.

Members further debated safeguarding the remaining public space from future development, proximity of the public space to the flats and likelihood of conflict, that it was now easier to comprehend the impact of the proposed development with other adjacent dwellings completed, whether a site visit was appropriate, and whether repositioning the flats within the plot would achieve a better result.  Mr Whitty responded that a condition related to the open space and there was a s106 requirement, the NPPF had become more defined in terms of the obligation to establish well-designed places.  With regards to the proximity of the flats to open space clarification could be obtained and a barrier such as railings could be installed to protect the flats.

Members further debated the loss of open space for play as particularly important due to the high density of dwellings, and the need to revise the original s106.  Mr Whitty confirmed that a variation to the s106 agreement may be required.  Members further discussed the control of litter and bonfires to ensure other residents were not impacted upon, and whether the proposed development would have resulted in the requirement for an increase in social housing numbers, had it been constructed at the same time as the adjacent dwellings.  Mr Whitty confirmed there would have been the requirement for one further dwelling with regards to affordable housing, but it would not be reasonable to add that requirement at this stage, given that it was a separate and contained development.  Mr Power also confirmed that the management of litter and the recycling of litter could be included as a condition.

Contrary to the recommendation of officers, permission was Refused for the following reasons; 

1.    The proposal would result in the introduction of an overly dominant form of development, and the loss of open space which makes a significant contribution to the spacious character of this part of the estate, which has now been built out. The scale, form and siting of the proposed building, together with the encroachment into and loss of open space, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal would subsequently result in a form of development out of character with the area, failing to take into account local distinctiveness and causing harm to the visual amenities of the streetscape. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies 33 and 54 of the Chichester Local Plan and paragraphs 127 and 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework

2.    The development would result in the loss of open space, which would be harmful to the amenities of surrounding properties. Furthermore, the proximity of the development to the open space would result in overlooking to future occupiers and an unacceptable relationship between the open space and the proposed development, which would be harmful to their amenity. The proposal would result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring properties and future occupiers, failing to comply with Policies 33 and 54 of the Chichester Local Plan 2014-2029.

3.    Informative: Since the previous application (16/00444/FUL)) the site has been built out and the open space provided.  The NPPF has also been revised and places a greater emphasis of achieving good design within development.  There has therefore been a material change in both policy and circumstance since the granting of application 16/00444/FUL.