Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

SI/19/01193/FUL - Units 1 To 7 Purchase Farm, Easton Lane, Sidlesham, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 7NU

Vehicular access; use of buildings for purposes within Use Classes B1 and B8 and for vehicle and boat repair and maintenance; retention of 4 no. portacabins and 5 no. storage containers for ancillary purposes; extension to existing parking areas with associated landscaping(retrospective application).

Decision:

Delegate to Officers.

Minutes:

Miss Bell presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided in the Update Sheet.

 

The Committee received the following statement and speakers:

 

A statement from Sidlesham Parish Council (read, and noted as not endorsed by Cllr D Johnson)  

 

Jill Sutcliffe – Objector

Yvonne Tulloch – Objector

Simon Wallace – Objector

Dan Gick – Supporter

Paul White – Agent

 

Miss Bell responded to Members’ comments and questions.  Miss Bell confirmed that there was a 2010 permission in place.  There was an area of hardstanding which was currently a car park, which would be reinstated.  This would provide a habitat suitable for Great Crested newts and the ecologist would be consulted on any amended details for this area.  Miss Bell further suggested that Members may also wish to support an informative for trees in addition to planting around the boundary of the area.  Currently on site were ten portacabins, four of which would remain.  Miss Bell also reminded the Committee that much of the development may take place under the 2010 permission and the current application was not considered an extensive increase.  With regards to vehicle movements a full assessment had not taken place.  In the relation to the restricted occupancy position, the use was already established under the 2010 permission.  Miss Bell explained that two conditions specifically related to a Noise Mitigation and Management Scheme, and the noise levels must be adhered to.  The agent had also mooted putting additional acoustic measures in place in their address to the Committee.  A further condition also related to storage being located within the main building and not externally.  Foul drainage conditions had not been included on the original permission and current changes would not require a condition in this regard, however should incidents occur, the environmental protection team would become involved.  On the matter of the uncontrolled and retrospective application, Miss Bell explained that a considerable amount of negotiation had taken place and a much improved application had resulted from that work.     

 

Mr Shaw confirmed that the applicant had not provided information regarding the number of trips likely to be generated and agreed those details may have been helpful, but the 2010 permission was a material planning consideration, many of the trips were permitted under that consent and they would not be significantly different in comparison with the current application.  Mr Shaw added that the level of information requested must be only what is explicitly required to determine the application.  Mr Shaw confirmed that he was not aware of any specific congestion caused by the development.  The road was not ideal but a review of the road safety record for the whole of Eastern Lane documents only one accident in the last six years.

 

Mrs Archer confirmed that the land which was currently hardstanding and was to be reinstated was at present subject to an enforcement notice therefore, any failure to undertake works would be supported by the notice formally, if compliance was not achieved.

 

With regards to the proposed application, the control of vehicle movements relating to hours of operation and noise requirements, and the definition of vehicles, Miss Bell confirmed that this would result in an improved situation for neighbours of the site, and their concerns had been taken into consideration as part of the negotiations.  Mrs Archer also confirmed that the areas which were outside the permissions could be reviewed, and further notices issued if necessary.

 

On the matter of deferral for the inclusion of further conditions to meet the concerns expressed by neighbours of the site, Mr Whitty confirmed that a deferral could be agreed by the Committee however, this application had been in progress for a long period of time, and considerable negotiations had taken place.  Mr Whitty advised that it was not the remit of the Committee to apply conditions requested by interested parties, but to apply the tests encompassed in Government guidance which advises conditions must be reasonable in respect of planning.  Should Members step outside these parameters, the Council would be open to appeal and the significant associated costs.  On the matter of Members concerns regarding vehicle movements, a condition could be added, but it was important not to be overly restrictive and cause negative impact on the operation of the business, and therefore Mr Whitty suggested that this could be delegated to officers for further negotiation.

 

Miss Bell confirmed there were operational changes on the proposed planning application and the new conditions would be applied.  With regards to whether the level of employment had changed from the 2010 permission and would lead to the necessity to add a foul drainage condition to the consent, a restriction on the number of employees had not previously been included, and Miss Bell advised therefore that it would not be reasonable to add such a condition.  Miss Bell also added that acoustic fencing could be discussed as part of the relevant condition, and also the addition of trees. 

 

Cllr Briscoe made a proposal to defer for further officer negotiation and officer delegated decision, which was seconded by Cllr Sutton.

 

Miss Golding gave the formal proposal: To delegate to officers, to enable them to carry out further negotiations regarding conditions, in particular, regarding large vehicle movements and noise buffering, and further landscaping to the south-west corner.

 

In vote Members approved the proposal.

 

Delegation to Officers agreed.

 

Members took a thirty minute lunch break

 

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page