Agenda item

Erection of 39 no. dwellings and associated development, including landscaping, highways and parking.

Permit

Mr McAra left the meeting.

Miss Bell presented the item to Members and drew attention to information provided in the Agenda Update Sheet which cited a new application on land immediately to the south of the site, for 66 dwellings, an amended Condition 19 regarding access to the site and conformity with the requirements of the Transport Statement, and an additional Condition in relation to a bollard for emergency access. 

The Committee received the following speaker:

David Neame – Agent

Officers responded to Members’ comments and questions:

Miss Bell explained with regards to the cycle link to Alywins Place, discussions were taking place with the relevant Housing Association to explore whether this could be delivered and Miss Bell confirmed this could be supported via a condition to ensure this would not allow vehicle access.  Miss Bell also confirmed that on the matter of a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) adjacent to the development to ensure a 40mph speed limit, the applicant was proposing to make an application which could be added to the ‘Heads of Terms’.  West Sussex County Council as the highways authority would need to undertake a consultation for a TRO, for which there would be associated costs.  Miss Bell added that officers did not consider this was necessary, but would support this matter.  Miss Bell clarified that the applicant had proposed to clear part of the hedge on the east side to ensure sufficient pavement space. 

On the matter of the ditch, Miss Bell responded the Council’s drainage officer had confirmed that this was in private ownership and the owner was responsible for maintenance.  Miss Bell further explained that the outfalls would be similar to green-field run-off rates, and therefore similar to the existing situation, due to slowing down via the Sustainable Drainage Systems and associated attenuation.  Miss Bell confirmed officers were satisfied with the proposals which could be a requirement of the section 106 agreement. 

In relation to the emerging Local Plan, Miss Bell confirmed the development would form part of the required housing numbers, and the indicative number for the location was 50 dwellings.  Miss Bell added that North Mundham Parish Council was undertaking a Neighbourhood Plan and was supportive of the location as suitable for development to meet their housing need.

With regards to the Hunston boundary, Miss Bell confirmed it was close to the western boundary of the site but the settlement boundary of Hunston was, separated by field gaps.  On the matter of the Local Area of Play (LAP), Miss Bell explained that there was not a requirement for play equipment but for an open space for play.  The LAP was adjacent to the SUDS ponds, but the gradients were shallow and therefore did not require fencing. 

Miss Bell drew Member’s attention to the section of the report regarding ‘Foul Water’ which explained that foul water from the site would be pumped to the foul sewer outfall in Alywin Place, which would drain to Pagham Waste Water Treatment Works.  Southern Water had confirmed sufficient capacity, and that it would not be released into the harbour and therefore nitrate mitigation would not be required.

Miss Bell confirmed that in relation to renewal energy resource, the applicant had exceeded policy expectations, fitting photovoltaic panels where they were not intrusive and providing air source heat pumps for the dwellings.  The proposals therefore meet both policy 40, and went beyond the Interim Position Statement (IPS) requirements.  With regards to the potential for the applicant to offer off-plan buyers an opportunity to purchase photovoltaic panels, Mr Whitty confirmed it would be requested, but the applicant could not be compelled to do so.

Miss Bell confirmed that five metres would be dug out to lay cables, but any hedgerow removed would be replanted.

With regards to the traffic impact of turning right into Lagness Road from Hunston Road Mr Shaw responded that only an assessment of the impact of this development could be undertaken.  The applicant’s modelling had predicted figures of 24 trips during the am peak and 19 trips during the pm peak, which were considered by officers to be low and that there would be no significant volume of traffic caused by this development.  There was a guidance threshold that junction improvements should only be considered at the trigger of 32 trips during peak hours.  Mr Shaw clarified that officers would not support a 30mph speed limit as it would not be in accordance with West Sussex speed limit policy, due to existing speeds, lack of frontage access, and further that the police looked to support TROs which were self-enforcing speed limits and not limits which would largely be disregarded.  With regards to a 40mph speed limit, Mr Shaw advised that it could not be insisted upon as it was not a requirement of planning permission however, should an alternative view be held by the Committee, it could potentially be included within the section 106 agreement.    

On the matter of the potential for parking on the road outside plots 6 and 7, Mr Shaw confirmed both dwellings would have two parking spaces with two visitor spaces on the opposite side of the road, and he could not envisaged a scenario in this part of the site which would cause an issue or encourage pavement parking and there was sufficient parking across the site.  With regards to the Southern Link Road, Mr Shaw responded that would not be assessed as part of this application, but on its own merits taking into account other developments at that point in time.  Mr Shaw responded to the matter of wider links via sustainable travel improvements; due to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) having been adopted by the Council, only specific mitigations could be requested which were necessary to make the site acceptable in planning terms, which Mr Shaw believed had been achieved.  The use of section 106 would therefore be considered as double-counting.

Mr Whitty confirmed that the applicant could be requested to seek a TRO, but as this would be subject to a separate assessment process by WSCC, implementation could not be required as part of the planning application.  With regards to the further application south of the site, the cumulative impact of both sites would be considered in due course, as part of that application. 

Miss Bell advised that the Management Company requirement would be included in the section 106 agreement with the standard text used for this purpose.  The Council would be informed of which Management Company would be engaged, and if it was altered at a future date.  The matter of the management company would also link to the maintenance of the SUDS, as the preferred option for drainage. 

Mr McAra returned to the meeting.

Mr Shaw responded to the matter of the alignment of the B2166 and bend, and concluded that there would be sufficient stopping distance to the rear of any queue.  Whilst the applicant was not required to do so, as Mr Shaw had explained, the applicant had modelled the junction and the resultant information demonstrated that there was unlikely to be any significant queues.  A future forecast had also been included which similarly did not lead to concern regarding right turns into the site. 

On the matter of the road width, Mr Shaw confirmed that 5 metres was acceptable and advised that two cars could pass within a width of 4.1 metres.  Wider roads could result in increasing their speed, and it was important to create a safe environment for residents.  Mr Shaw also responded to discussion regarding the connection to Alywin Place and confirmed that West Sussex County Council as the highway authority wished to create a permeable network, but part of the land adjacent to the site was in private ownership and therefore this would not be possible in this instance.

The Chairman confirmed that numbers of TRO annual requests were not limited for developers, where they would take responsibility for the funding.  The Chairman confirmed a condition for the path to the west of the site, an additional informative for buyers to have the opportunity to purchase photovoltaic panels off-plan, the potential for a TRO to be added to the section 106 agreement would be considered, and access to Alywin Place would be protected from unauthorised access by way of a link fence or vegetation as appropriate.

In a vote Members agreed the recommendation to defer for Section 106 and then permit.

Recommendation to Permit agreed.

Members took a ten minute break.