Agenda item

1 no. self-contained unit for tourist accommodation use.

Mr Mew introduced the application.

Further information was provided on the agenda update sheet regarding the review of the Local Plan, explaining that consultation on a Preferred Approach Local Plan had taken place and that following consideration of the responses, it was intended that the Council would publish a Submission Local Plan under Regulation 19 early in 2021. 

Further information was also provided on the agenda update sheet regarding comments from the CDC Environment Officer in relation to making appropriate provision for bats, reptiles, and nesting birds.  Further requirements were listed, pertaining to enhancements to be incorporated into the scheme for replacement of trees, planting of a wildflower meadow and filling gaps in tree lines and hedgerows.  A further five letters of objections had also been received from the same parties as previously.  Additional conditions were also listed confirming no structure shall be erected or alteration made without the grant of planning permission, and that the implementation of this planning permission would be carried out strictly in accordance with the measures concluded within the Ecological Report.  Amended conditions were detailed stating that no works should be carried out above slab level until a scheme for ecological enhancement had been submitted for approval prior to first occupation.  Details of the existing and proposed boundary treatments and walled garden shall also be submitted for approval.  The building should only be used only for holiday accommodation, and any scheme for external illumination shall also be submitted for written approval.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mrs Bernice Culley – Objector

Mr Paul White – Agent

Members expressed concerns that this would be a new structure in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), and the scale of encroachment.  Members sought clarification regarding the lack of hedgerows on the northern and western boundaries, issues of building outside the settlement boundary and whether the surrounding land was owned by the applicant and there may be further similar applications.  Members also commented that access facilities for wheelchair users were not cited for the proposed dwelling, and that the greenhouse it was replacing, was significantly smaller.  Mr Mew responded that landscaping was listed in the conditions, and the supporting statements included hedging to the southern boundary providing connectivity to the woodland to the west enhancing ecological benefits, and that the northern boundary could be considered further.  The blue line on the plan included the field which was owned by the applicant and the red line had been tightly drawn to limit encroachment and control the site within the AONB.  Any future applications would have to be determined on their own merits.  Policy 30 allowed for tourism units to be located outside the settlement boundary in appropriate locations and no objections had been received from the Chichester Harbour Conservancy (CHC) and this was considered an acceptable site in accordance with the policy.

Mrs Stevens confirmed that the application was for a single unit which would add to the two already on the site.  The unit would provide direct employment for the required maintenance of the proposed dwelling, tourism was considered positive within the area and as cited by Mr Mew, policy 30 supported this activity.  With regards to the management of disturbance, a financial contribution was being made by way of a mitigation scheme operated by the ‘Bird Aware Partnership’.  Mrs Stevens further explained that there were no requirements within current policies which required of provision of accessible accommodation, and therefore the application could not be refused on this basis.  In terms of landscaping along the northern and western boundary, an informative requiring native hedging would be reasonable to soften the visual impact.

Members sought further clarification regarding whether it was feasible to remove the permitted development rights for the field, in order that this application would be the last development on the site, the meaning within the report of ‘No vegetation to be stored on the construction zone’, public viewpoint of the site as public footpaths were located to the north, light spillage and controls, the absence of a clear proposal in relation to planting on the northern and western boundaries, and whether it would be possible to stipulate the planting of trees with a subsequent tree preservation orders placed on them to limit further development.  Mr Mew responded that a field would not benefit from permitted development rights, there would be an article 4 which restricted camping, and it was proposed to withdraw permitted development rights for the proposed holiday unit.  With regards to the statement of ‘No vegetation to be stored…’ this was to prevent reptiles entering any vegetation from activities such as strimming.  The proposed scheme would have rooflights, but a condition had been included for blinds to be used from dusk until dawn.  With regards to views within the ANOB, the site was well contained and the CHC had not cited any concerns.  The landscaping condition could also be amended to enhance the northern and western boundaries and could include tree planting.  Mr Whitty added that that Local Plan was very supportive of tourism, as was the CHC.  The viewpoint and the AONB was an important factor, but as explained previously the CHC were not concerned regarding the impact of the development.  To the north was a strong tree belt which separated the site from the harbour and wider landscape, but the Committee could request further screening.    

Members sought further clarification regarding limiting permitted development rights, and further commented that if trees were planted, tree preservation orders would not apply unless they were ‘fine specimens’, and such trees would be newly planted.  The Chairman reminded the Committee that they could only deal with what had been currently presented but was inclined to agree with further hedge and tree planting.  Mr Whitty advised the Committee to disregard the ownership of whole site in considering this application which related only to the area within the red line and the construction of a building, any further building would require an application, and guarding against mission creep would be by way of scrutiny of any future application and planting was not necessary in order to do so.  The landscaping requirement could be strengthened but tree preservation orders could not be applied as trees do not have an amenity value until they have reached a certain age but a condition could require any tree which died within five years to be replanted.  With regards to an accessible toilet, Mr Whitty advised this would be covered by Building Regulations and the Disability Discrimination Act and above these requirements, the authority could only state as an informative.  Mr Whitty also confirmed that landscaping of the boundaries would form part of the recommendations.

RESOLVED

Recommendation to Permit agreed with additional conditions, informatives and amendments as discussed.