Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

CH/19/03029/FUL - Plot C, Pond Farm, Newells Lane, West Ashling, Chichester, PO18 8DF

To use land as a Travellers caravan site consisting of 1 no. mobile home
and 1 no. touring caravan with associated development.

 

Decision:

Permit

 

Minutes:

Mr Power 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. 

 

Mr Power also confirmed verbally that temporary planning permission for the siting of a caravan on the site had been granted in 2013.

 

Members sought clarification regarding sewerage and surface water, the impact on wildlife corridors and the chalk stream, whether the parish could be considered to have an area of dominance, impact on public rights of way access, if further ecological enhancement could be required and the definition of ‘Gypsies and Travellers’.  Members further commented that the district did not currently have sufficient pitches for gypsies and travellers, the site was not within flood zone two or three, and the length of time the family had been on site and become part of the community.  Mrs Stevens responded that at the current time limited weight could be given to the emerging Local Plan review in relation to wildlife corridors and the chalk stream, however it was important to limit erosion prior to the adoption of the plan, but the Environment Officer had made no objections to the application.  Mr Power confirmed that the site was within flood zone one, the impact on the bridle paths was not considered an issue by the highways authority, and any damage would be liable to the applicant.  The site was not large but there is some scope to the south and to the entrance, for landscape enhancements.  With regards to recreational disturbance payments, the agent had confirmed the applicant was willing to make that payment and was in the process of signing a unilateral undertaking.  In relation to the definition of ‘Gypsies and Trallevers’, there was a standard condition within the report, used by the authority and the Planning Inspectorate.  The foul drainage was processed via a septic tank which was permitted in the 2013 temporary permission, and the Drainage Officer considered that was acceptable.  Mr Power further explained that in terms of the effect on the settled community, a similar comment was raised in connection with the Keynor Lane appeal and the Inspector found in that instance, there would not be an over-burden and dominance within the community.    

 

Miss Golding added that the travelling show people site in Priors Leaze Lane, had been mentioned within the debate and advised this was a different and separate group, with different needs and policies, and was not relevant for the determination of this application.  Mr Whitty also confirmed that he was unable to advise how the long a single family had occupied the site, and noted that information provided from the public gallery (given as since 2006).  The site was one of a number permitted temporary permission in 2014/15. 

 

Members sought further clarification regarding electricity supply, whether an electric charging point for a vehicle had been included in the report and if cycle storage had also been included on the site, and whether a condition governing a lighting scheme might be appropriate.  Members further commented that the site would require a condition regarding sewerage and drainage.  Mr Whitty responded that there was no specific definition regarding an area and its relation to dominance, in past appeals officers have argued it related to immediate dwellings and Inspectors had consistently treated this, with regards to the size of the parish. The supply of electricity was not normally a material consideration, and only in connection with protecting the environment for example that fuels were safeguarded from spillage.  Officers would look to further safeguarding ecological features. With regards to cycle storage and light spillage, permission had already been temporarily granted and impact assessed, therefore it would not now be reasonable to include such requirements.   Foul sewerage was already established on the site, but a condition could be added for the need to maintain the facility in perpetuity. 

 

Members further queried that a car charging point had been included potentially in response to the new West Sussex County Council guidelines and therefore could a new condition be added regarding light spillage in relation to the impact on wildlife.  Mr Whitty confirmed that the County Council had new guidance on car charging which could now be relied upon.  With regards to wildlife corridors the authority now had new and emerging scheme with further available evidence, and therefore that also could be included.  A condition relating to lighting had been included repeating the condition as previously cited in the temporary permission.  Mr Whitty advised that the requirement for covered cycle provision was not previously required and therefore it would now not be unreasonable for it to be a requirement.

 

RESOLVED

 

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

Mr Oakley left the room.

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page