Agenda item

Erection of 1 no. dwelling.

Refuse

Mrs Stevens 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 stating that the applicant had submitted further information and photographs in support of the application.

The following members of the public addressed the Committee:

Mr Mike Sully – Parish Council

Mr Derek Garrett – Objector

Dr Felicia Hughes-Freeland – Objector

Mr Seymour Baker – Objector

Mr Neil Kimber- Applicant

Mr John Elliot – Chichester District Council

Members commented on the issue of the road in which the proposed dwelling would be sited being narrow and difficult for pedestrians with the volume of traffic and that a further smaller piece of pavement could aid this situation, the value of the tide wall in heritage terms, and an awareness that the applicant had retained the material which had broken away from the wall which could be used to rebuild the wall in the new proposed position.  Members further commented on the change to the street scene if the proposal was permitted and sought clarification regarding the requirements for rebuilding the wall.  Mr Broadway explained that there would be a requirement to reconstruct the wall in an appropriate manner on the grounds of its significance in a conservation area and reminded Members that the current position of the wall was crucially important and should be preserved as a tidewall.  

Members sought further clarification regarding access to the site.  Mrs Stevens responded that there was no other access to the site, and it was important to consider that the proposals included removing a substantial part of the wall.  With regards to the conservation area character appraisal which was a material consideration, the walls made a significant contribution to the conservation area and it was important that they were preserved.  One of the recommended actions when the area was designated as a conservation area was that the District Council would continue to protect historic boundary walls from demolition.  The proposal included the relocation of a flint wall, in the same design as the adjacent wall with flint panel and brick in-fill.  This wall  was constructed prior to the area being designated as a conservation area and was considered overly harsh and dominant within the street scene. 

Members sought clarification as to whether there was an obligation to rebuild the wall if it fell down.  Mr Whitty confirmed there was no requirement to rebuild the wall and that the position within the street scene was favoured for its close-knit appearance. 

Members sought further clarification regarding hedging and car charging point and further commented upon the eclectic mix of buildings within the road.  Mr Whitty advised that if permission was refused, it was likely that the plot would be sold back to the original owners and returned to being part of their garden.  If the wall was removed the hedging would also be removed, some planting had been proposed.  The car charging point would be located within the privately created lay-by.  If the application was permitted, there would be a requirement to construct a better wall in terms of appearance than the adjacent wall.  Mr Broadway added that the adjacent wall was considered harmful within the conservation area.

RESOLVED

Recommendation to Refuse agreed.

The Committee took a thirty minute lunch break. 

Mr Wilding left the room. 

Mr Oakley returned to the room.