Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

NM/19/00677/FUL - South Mundham Farm, South Mundham Road, South Mundham, PO20 1LU

Change of use of flint barns to 3 no. residential units and replacement of existing agricultural buildings with 3 no. residential units.

Decision:

Permit

Minutes:

Mr Power introduced the application.

 

Additional information was provided on the agenda update sheet a further condition regarding the removal of existing buildings on the site, and the summary of two letters of objection.

 

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

 

Mr Timothy Russell – Parish Council

Mrs Gillian Nott – Objector

Mr Kris Mitra – Agent

 

Members sought clarification with regards to the number of proposed dwellings, the fall-back position relating to policy 46 and permitted development rights, vehicles movements likely to be generated in the absence of public transport, and whether landscaping would screen parked cars.  Members sought further clarification regarding car charging points, demolition times, potential CIL requirements, potential to control internal alterations and further permitted development rights and the threshold for the requirement of affordable houses.  Mr Power responded that the area on the plan within the red and blue lines were in the same ownership and with regards to the fall-back position, the site had two prior approvals, one for theAtcost shed to be converted to three dwellings and another for shed two to also be converted to three dwellings and under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) there is a maximum of five dwellings allowed solely under Class Q and therefore technically only one of the prior approvals could be implemented, hence the reason for having the fall-back position for three dwellings for plot numbers 4, 5 and 6.  This did not prevent six dwellings across the whole site to be permitted under two separate prior approvals.  Plot’s 1, 2 and 3 would be considered under policy 46 as conversions of existing buildings.  Mr Power summarised that were six dwellings on the site for the application, however only three were considered as part of fall-back and three as a conversion.   There are no controls over the highways movements for the existing use of the site.  Mr Power confirmed that six dwellings for the site, was not considered a significant increase compared to the existing agricultural use. A landscaping plan was provided early in the application process and small changes have been made to the layout of the proposal, with a reduction in the amount of car parking in the middle of site, and specifically changes to plot 4, and the layout also showed significant planting to the south and north side of site, and therefore a condition has been included, due the changes.  With regards to the charging points there would be one for each plot which could be confirmed by condition.  The floor-space in comparison to the fall-back position is just considering the Atcost shed which was approximately 510 square metres and plots 4, 5 and 6 was approximately 530 square metres, approximately 177 per plot, therefore there was a small but not significant increase.  Condition 20 would not control internal alteration but would control new windows, and given the eaves of the roof, it would not be possible to build another floor.   Mr Power confirmed that the threshold for affordable housing was ten dwellings, but the fall-back is for three dwellings therefore, there would be only three dwellings in relation to the requirement for affordable housing.

 

Mr Whitty clarified that with regards to the floor-space of the Atcost shed, permitted development rights allow conversion of 465 square metres, therefore the difference is greater but consideration could be given to the better layout, form and sustainability measures that would come with a new build.  In terms of class Q, if the class Q permission where implemented, instead of the current application, this would prevent further class Q conversions, therefore Mr Whitty advised the addition of a condition to prevent a further ‘class Q conversions’.  Mr Whitty further clarified that in regard to the two buildings, at the time the legislation allowed class Q restricted conversion to three dwellings, which has now been expanded to five dwellings. Whilst each of the buildings could gain prior approval as an alternative to another, the GPDO would only afford permission for the implementation of conversion of up to 3 units (or 5 if subsequently granted prior approval). It was important that the restriction was not by-passed.

 

Members sought further clarification regarding the CIL regulations and Mr Whitty responded that the regulations allowed a discount for any building on the site, but in regards to this application, there was more than 530 square metres of buildings to be demolished which could all likely be discounted and therefore there would potentially be no CIL requirement.

 

Members sought further clarification regarding the potential to restrict the creation of further floor-space by creating an upper floor.  Mr Whitty confirmed that condition 20 would prevent the insertion of new windows and habitable floor space would be difficult to provide given the eaves levels as it would be unlikely to meet building regulations, but a further condition could be added to ensure a further floor was not created.

 

Resolved

 

Recommendation to Permit agreed with the conditions as cited on the update sheet, and further/amended conditions:

 

·         To confirm the hours of construction work to be permitted

·         To confirm that one car charging point per dwelling was required

·         To require a landscaping plan with a maximum number of trees to screen the car parking area

·         To confirm that the amount of permitted habitable floor space

·         To remove class Q within the areas highlighted on the plans.

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page