Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held in Committee Rooms - East Pallant House on Wednesday 14 October 2015 at 9.

Transcription

1 Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held in Committee Rooms - East Pallant House on Wednesday 14 October 2015 at 9.30 am Members Present: Mr R Hayes (Chairman), Mrs C Purnell (Vice-Chairman), Mr G Barrett, Mr M Cullen, Mrs J Duncton, Mr M Dunn, Mr J F Elliott, Mr M Hall, Mr L Hixson, Mrs J Kilby, Mr G McAra, Mr S Oakley, Mr R Plowman, Mrs J Tassell and Mrs P Tull Members not present: In attendance by invitation: Officers present all items: Mr A Frost (Head of Planning Services), Ms N Golding (Principal Solicitor and Monitoring Officer), Mr J Bushell (Principal Planning Officer), Mr J Saunders (Development Manager (National Park)), Mr T Whitty (Development Management Service Manager), Mrs S Archer (Staff Side) and Mrs K Jeram (Member Services Officer) 259 Chairman's Announcements The Chairman welcomed the public, introduced the officers and explained the emergency evacuation arrangements. 260 Approval of Minutes that the Minutes of the meeting held on 16 September 2015 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record. 261 Urgent Items The Chairman advised members that there were no urgent items. 262 Declarations of Interests The agenda update sheet set out the declarations of members personal interests arising from their membership of parish councils or West Sussex County Council or from their being Chichester District Council or West Sussex County Council appointees to outside organisations or members of outside bodies or from being employees of such organisations or bodies. Mrs Duncton declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications SB/15/01827/FUL, CH/15/01444/FUL and CC/15/00743/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council.

2 Mr Hayes declared a personal interest in respect of planning application SB/15/01827/FUL as a member of Southbourne Parish Council. Mr Hixson declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/15/02251/FUL and CC/15/02252/LBC as a Chichester District Council appointed member of Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee. Mrs Kilby declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/15/02251/FUL and CC/15/02252/LBC as a Chichester City Council appointed member of Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee. Mr McAra declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications SB/15/01827/FUL, CH/15/01444/FUL and CC/15/00743/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council. Mr Oakley declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications SB/15/01827/FUL, CH/15/01444/FUL and CC/15/00743/OUT as a member of West Sussex County Council. Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/15/00743/OUT, CC/15/02251/OUT and CC/15/02252/LBC as a member of Chichester City Council. Mr Plowman declared a personal interest in respect of planning applications CC/15/02251/OUT and CC/15/02252/LBC a Chichester City Council appointed member of Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee. Mrs Kilby declared a prejudicial interest in respect Agenda Item 11 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions in respect of land at Marsh Farm, Farm Barn, Drove Lane, Earnley as one of the occupiers was a former employee. 263 SB/15/01827/FUL - White Croft 14 Breach Avenue Southbourne West Sussex PO10 8NB The location plan missing from the report was attached to the agenda update sheet. (a) Mr M Everson Parish representative; (b) Miss E Medlar Objector; and (c) Mr C Snape Applicant Mr Whitty responded to members questions and comments. He advised that the proposed parking to the front of the property was characteristic of other properties in Breach Avenue. With regard to the plum tree he stated that it

3 was not considered worthy by officers of a tree preservation order. With regard to the density of the proposal he advised that the proposal was not uncharacteristic within the area as other dwellings had been developed within similar plots. The issue of overlooking had been carefully looked into with a condition proposed that would require the bathroom and stairwell windows at first floor on the eastern elevation to be fitted with obscure glazed glass to protect the amenity of the existing dwelling. Members discussed the issue of the plum tree further. Following concern raised about the loss of the plum tree and the issue of adequate screening of the development to mitigate its impact members favoured the amendment of condition 7 (landscaping) seeking the retention of the existing tree and one new tree or if this was not achievable its replacement with two new trees. Recommendation to Permit with Section 106 agreement and amended condition 7 (landscaping) seeking retention of existing plum tree and one additional new tree or if not possible its replacement with two trees agreed. 264 CH/15/01444/FUL - Garage Compound South East Of 21 To 25 Flatt Road Nutbourne West Sussex The agenda update sheet reported additional information submitted by the applicant concerning the methodology for the on street parking capacity survey and provision of replacement allotments, and an amended recommendation to read Defer for a Section 106 agreement then Permit. (a) Mr C Archer Parish representative; and (b) Mr D Haley Agent Mr Whitty responded to members questions and comments. He provided details of the results of the parking and garage surveys carried out. With regard to a suggestion made by a member that further parking provision could be made by way of further laybys, unless there was a safety issue concerning residents parking on the road, this was outside the scope of the planning application. He confirmed that following the provision of the layby, which was a benefit to the scheme and not a requirement, there would still be green space for children to play. He advised that a vehicle tracking assessment had been carried out which established that refuse vehicles would be able to enter and exit in forward gear. However, this was not the favoured option as the preference was for a kerbside bin collection. In response to concerns raised about the adequacy of the replacement of the current allotments including the issue of contamination, he advised that details of the soil quality, fertility and appropriate depth could be required to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The replacement of the allotment prior to their loss from the site would be secured trough the Section 106 agreement. The issue of wide doors within the proposed dwelling for disabled access was a building control matter.

4 (vi) Mr Frost confirmed that the proposal would meet a specific identified affordable housing need for the elderly in the area. Officers were satisfied that the displaced parking caused by the removal of the garages could be accommodated on the highway. A vote to defer the application for a site visit was not carried. Defer for a Section 106 agreement then permit with one additional condition concerning adequate provision for the replacement allotments including soil quality agreed. 265 CC/15/00743/OUT - Land South Of Graylingwell Drive Chichester West Sussex The agenda update sheet reported corrections to the report concerning a spelling mistake on page 34, an amendment to the flood zone constraints on page 38, amended recommendation to read Defer for a Section 106 agreement and completion of Easement agreement between Linden/Downland Graylingwell LLP and the University of Chichester then Permit, further assessment of the Jacob s transport report and the addition of a final paragraph at paragraph 8.13 on page 47, the receipt of a further representation from the solicitor acting for the applicant, amendments to condition 16 (highway access road), and two further conditions (access road and spur road). (a) Miss D Killner (statement read out by Mrs D Weaver) Objector; (b) Mr C Behagg Supporter; (c) Ms C De Bathe Supporter; and (d) Ms V Fowler On applicant s behalf It was noted that the usual reference to the relevant plans had not been included in the pre Committee conditions. During the discussion members requested further explanation in respect of the proposed easement to be granted providing access rights along Graylingwell Drive to the University of Chichester land in light of the comments made during the applicant s representative s address to the Committee that the right of access was not required for the development to go ahead. Mr Frost advised that Local Plan Policy 14 (Development at Chichester City North) set out the requirement for the provision of an access to the University. Extensive negotiations had taken place to identify a suitable access to the University that would meet this policy objective and avoid highway safety issues including rat running via roads to the east of the site. Following advice provided by the Council s Legal Advisor, officers now considered that in light of progress being made between the parties there appeared to be no requirement to secure the easement by planning controls (e.g. Section 106 agreement) but that it was important that further progress was monitored. It was to be noted that the

5 University were satisfied with the progress being made. Miss Golding referred to the comment made by the University s representative during his address to the Committee that agreement was expected to be reached on 26 November She suggested an amendment to the recommendation that, due to the uncertainty, after this date the decision should be delegated to officers to deal with the matter. (vi) (vii) With regard to the Section 106 agreement, Mr Frost confirmed that if significant changes were required to be made to the agreement then the matter would be brought to the Committee for consideration. In response to a member s concern regarding the location of the proposed future school and the accumulative build-up of traffic, which would pass the school entrance, Mr Townsend referred to the Traffic Impact Assessment. He explained that there would be circa 380 two way movements during peak times past the proposed school. He confirmed that the current bus gates were a vital component and if they were not in place a rat run would be created. Recommendation to Defer for a Section 106 agreement and delegate to officers in respect of progress on the easement with amended condition 16 (highway access road) and two further conditions (access road and spur road)then Permit agreed. 266 CC/15/02251/FUL - 29 Little London And 6 East Row Chichester West Sussex PO19 1PB (a) Mrs R Hodge - Objector; and (b) Mr H Groucott - Agent Mr Saunders replied to the points raised by members during the discussion. He confirmed that the cat slide roof had been added to the dwelling after it had received Grade II listed building status. The applicant had worked carefully with the Historic Buildings Advisor to introduce a more industrial character to the dwelling so that it was more in keeping with the original building and he advised that the proposals were considered to be an enhancement. During the discussion some members considered that the proposals were acceptable and that the removal of the cat slide roof would be an improvement and would not detract from the street scene, whilst other members expressed considerable concern regarding the loss of the cat slide roof. A vote to permit the application was not carried. The majority of members did not favour approval of the planning application as they considered that the development by reason of its design and the loss of the cat slide roof form would not preserve or enhance the character of the

6 building in line with Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment of the National Planning Policy Framework. (vi) Refuse for the following reason: The proposed demolition of the existing lean-to extension and replacement single storey extension by reason of the loss of the existing cat-slide roof form and the design of the replacement extension would not preserve or enhance the character of the listed building. The proposal would therefore be contrary to section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies 10 and 47 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key policies (Note: this decision was contrary to the officer recommendation) 267 CC/15/02252/LBC - 29 Little London and 6 East Row, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1PB Additional information was recorded on the agenda update sheet relating to one further condition (suitable finish to brickwork). (a) Mrs R Hodge - Objector; and (b) Mr H Groucott - Agent (vi) Mr Saunders replied to the points raised by members during the discussion. He confirmed that the cat slide roof had been added to the dwelling after it had received Grade II listed building status. The applicant had worked carefully with the Historic Buildings Advisor to introduce a more industrial character to the dwelling so that it was more in keeping with the original building and he advised that the proposals were considered to be an enhancement. During the discussion some members considered that the proposals were acceptable and that the removal of the cat slide roof would be an improvement and would not detract from the street scene, whilst other members expressed considerable concern regarding the loss of the cat slide roof. A vote to permit the application was not carried. The majority of members did not favour approval of the planning application as they considered that the development by reason of its design and the loss of the cat slide roof form would not preserve or enhance the character of the building in line with Section 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic environment of the National Planning Policy Framework. Refuse for the following reason:

7 The proposed demolition of the existing lean-to extension and replacement single storey extension by reason of the loss of the existing cat-slide roof form and the design of the replacement extension would not preserve or enhance the character of the listed building. The proposal would therefore be contrary to section 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework and policies 10 and 47 of the Chichester Local Plan: Key policies (Note: this decision was contrary to the officer recommendation) 268 BX/15/02191/FUL The Old Granary The Street Boxgrove Chichester West Sussex PO18 0ES Additional information was reported on the agenda update sheet relating to a further consultation response from Chichester District Council Planning Policy relating to Policy 26 of the Local Plan, one further third party representation, a further letter of support from the applicant and the officer s response. Mr Whitty reported that since the publication of the agenda update sheet two further letters of support had been received. (a) Mr C Todd - Applicant; and (b) Mr H Potter Ward member (vi) (vii) In response to members comments and questions, Mr Whitty provided details of the number of employees currently working at the premises. He explained that officers when considering such applications considered all the Local Plan policies that were key to the application. In particular he referred to Policy 26 (Existing Employment Sites) of the Local Plan and explained that marketing of the premises was required, as set out in Appendix E of the Local Plan, before the loss of the B1 use could be considered. Mr Frost responded to the suggestion made by a member whether a temporary planning permission could be granted. He advised that Local Plan Policy 26 was in place to protect employment land and buildings and he referred to the Government s drive to promote economic development and to protect this type of employment. He pointed out that if planning permission was granted for another use the B1 use would be lost. It was for the Committee if they were in favour of the application to put forward a reasoned proposal that addressed what was set out in this Policy. The majority of members supported the application, which they considered would create employment of a desirable nature and would be of benefit to the area. Permit with appropriate conditions including restriction on use and the removal of permitted development rights as follows:

8 (1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of 3 years from the date of this permission. Reason: To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). (2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: 01, 02. Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. (3) The building shall be used for the purposes of a private health and wellbeing clinic only and for no other purpose whatsoever including any other purpose in Class D1; of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 as amended by the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes)(Amendment)(England) Order 2015 or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any other statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order, or any use permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, as amended or other statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order. Reason: To ensure the use of the building does not have a harmful environmental effect in the interests of amenity. (4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting or amending that Order) no additions to, or extensions or enlargements of, or alterations affecting the external appearance of, the buildings shall be made or erected without a grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To enable the Local Planning Authority to retain control over the enlargements/alterations of the building(s) in the interests of the proper planning and amenities of the area. Page 2 of 3 Application No.BX/15/02191/FUL (5) The parking shown on drawing no. 01 shall be provided in accordance with the approved plans prior to first use of the building and thereafter retained as approved in perpetuity. Reason: In the interests of highway safety. (6) INFORMATIVE The Local Planning Authority has acted positively and proactively in determining this application by assessing the proposal against all material considerations, including planning policies and any representations that may have been received and subsequently determining to grant planning permission in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework. (7) INFORMATIVE The applicant is reminded that the Council operate a formal procedure for the discharge of conditions. Details of this procedure can be found on the Council s website (Note: this decision was contrary to officer recommendation)

9 269 SDNP/15/03108/FUL - Beech Lodge Bull Hill Rogate West Sussex GU31 5DL Recommendation to Permit agreed. 270 Schedule of Outstanding Contraventions The Committee considered and noted the schedule of outstanding contraventions (copy attached to the official minutes). Mrs Archer reported that the number of enforcement notices produced during this financial year was twice as many as issued for the same period the previous year. This, she explained, had partly been achieved through more diligent case monitoring. During the discussion of land at Marsh Farm, Farm Barn, Drove Lane, Earnley, Mrs Kilby withdrew from meeting and sat in the public seating area having declared a prejudicial interest. Mrs Archer answered questions by members with respect to: - Land at Marsh Farm, Farm Barn, Drove Lane, Earnley - Land North West of Premier Business Park, Birdham Road, Chichester - Decoy Farm, Decoy Lane, Aldingbourne - The Old Post Office, Southbrook Road, West Ashling 271 Development Management Performance Update The Committee considered this report (copy attached to the official minutes). Mr Whitty outlined the recent performance of the Development Management Service and advised that the improvements to the report requested by members had been incorporated. He reported that the reason for the low percentages for South Downs National Park (SDNP) applications being decided within the agreed timescales were partly due to resourcing issues. A temporary member of staff had been employed to deal with the back log of older SDNP applications. The number of appeals received was roughly the same for Chichester District Council and SDNP applications. In response to a question, Mr Whitty reported that very few appeals for nondetermination were received and that they tended to be for major applications. Mr Plowman on behalf of the Committee congratulated officers on producing the report and in particular the graphs.

10 272 Schedule of Planning Appeals, Court and Policy Matters The Committee noted the schedule of planning appeals, court and policy matters which had been circulated with the agenda (copy attached to the official minutes). 273 Consideration of any late items as follows: There were no late items for urgent consideration at this meeting. 274 Exclusion of the Press and Public There were no restricted items for consideration at this meeting. The meeting ended at 1.40 pm CHAIRMAN Date: