Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

LX/20/01481/FUL - Land South West Of Guildford Road, Loxwood, West Sussex

Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 50 dwelling to include 35 private unites and 15 affordable units, creation of proposed vehicular access, internal road and footpaths, car parking, sustainable drainage system, open space with association landscaping and amenity space (resubmission of planning application reference LX/19/01240/FUL).

Minutes:

Mr Bushell presented the item to Members and drew attention to the information provided on the update sheet.

 

The Committee received the following speakers:

 

Tony Colling – Parish Council

Peter Shahbenderian – Objector

Chris Brake – Agent

Gareth Evans – District Council (statement read)

 

Mr Bushell responded to Members’ comments and questions.  He explained that the overhead power lines within the site would be either buried or diverted, following a separate agreement between the developer and the electricity board as the statutory undertaker in this respect, and it was inappropriate to therefore include a condition in this regard.  In terms of decision making, Mr Bushell advised that the Parish’s Neighbourhood Plan was procedurally not sufficiently advanced to influence the decision of a planning Inspector were the application to be refused and subsequently pursued to appeal.  The west boundary would be well screened from the bridlepath, although there would be distant filtered views of the roofs tops similar to the existing adjacent development in Nursery Green.  Mr Bushell further clarified that there would be a five metre wide landscape buffer adjacent to the west and north site boundaries to visually soften the edge of the development with an access gate for maintenance. The land would be excluded from residents’ gardens and separately maintained by an estate management company, and officers were satisfied with the proposals in this regard.  Mr Bushell confirmed that the area to the north of the site was not part of the application site and outside of the applicant’s control. The proposals were not a subdivision of a site. A physical boundary in the form of a post and wire fence was in place and this would be reinforced by the proposed five metre landscape buffer. 

 

Mr Whitty advised that the current appeal against the previous refused application on the site was fundamentally based on the Council having a sufficient five year housing land supply. That situation had now changed and the Council could no longer demonstrate a five year housing land supply. The Council could not defend this position at appeal and the potential costs awarded against the Council in continuing to pursue an appeal under such circumstances were likely to be significant.  Mr Whitty also re-iterated that arguments around the prematurity of the proposals ahead of any revisions to the Neighbourhood plan would not carry weight with the planning Inspector.  With regards to foul water sewerage disposal, he considered this was robustly conditioned (condition 6) and there were on-going discussions -taking place with Southern Water.

 

Mr Bushell confirmed that that proposed informal path from the site to Guildford Road would be 3 metres wide and surfaced with hoggin, it had good visibility and West Sussex County Council as the highways authority, were satisfied with regards to safety.  Mr Bushell advised that the demolition of Hollyview House was an inevitable consequence of the development and in relation to the embedded carbon released from this action, it was necessary to consider this in light of the overall long-term carbon savings of the development.  With regards to the landscaping, Mr Bushell confirmed that the maintenance company would be responsible for watering newly planted trees and plants until they were established, and should any trees or plants die within five years, there would be a requirement to replace them.  On the matter of the slope of the land, condition 4 required that details of ground levels and floor levels were provided and submitted to officers for approval.  Mr Bushell added that offsite provision for foul sewerage disposal must be in place by the time of first occupation and if those works were not in place, agreed detailed interim on-site measures would need to be implemented in full.

 

Mr Whitty further responded that it would not be possible to leave the current overhead power lines in place as there was insufficient space.  On the matter of new permitted development rights to increase the height of buildings, this only applied to existing dwellings and not future dwellings, but officers would review the lawful position and add a condition if necessary.  In relation to the on-going appeal, it was considered that should the current application be approved, the applicant would have broadly achieved the satisfactory outcome they were seeking and therefore it was anticipated the appeal would be withdrawn.  Should the applicant continue with the appeal having achieved planning permission, the Council would be in a position to make a claim for costs for unreasonable behaviour.  Mr Whitty also advised that on the matter of foul sewerage, the development would only begin producing foul waste once the dwellings were occupied and to require foul drainage works to be in place prior to construction of the dwellings would be unreasonable.  A re-phrasing of condition 6 in this regard may result in the developer continuing with their current appeal.

 

On the matter of block paving, Mr Bushell confirmed that officers would ensure the road surface was appropriate for use by waste collection vehicles and the proposed informative on the recommendation would be changed to a condition.  Mr Whitty also confirmed that the extent of new permitted development rights would be reviewed, and applied via a condition if necessary.

 

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation.

 

Recommendation to Defer for Section 106 and then Permit.

 

Members took a ten minute break

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page