Minutes – Planning and Conservation Working Group – 27 May 2021

The agenda and papers for this meeting are available here: Planning and Conservation Working Group – 27 May 2021 – agenda and papers

The minutes of this meeting are presented below.

You can also download a PDF copy of the minutes here: Minutes – Planning and Conservation Working Group – 27 May 2021

NOTES OF THE VIRTUAL MEETING OF THE
PLANNING AND CONSERVATION WORKING GROUP
HELD ON THURSDAY 27 MAY AT 5.00PM

PRESENT:

• Councillors Plowman (Chairman), Quail (Vice-Chairman), Gaskin

EX-OFFICIO:

• The Mayor (Councillor J Hughes), The Deputy Mayor (Councillor Joy), Councillor Apel (Chairman of the Community Affairs Working Group), Councillor Scicluna (Chairman of the Finance Working Group)

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:

• Councillor Bell, Town Clerk, Property Manager, Planning Adviser, Mayoral/Administrator Assistant, Dr Linda Boize (local resident)

ABSENT:

• Councillor Turbefield

1. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

(i) General

Councillor Bell said that he had expressed his wish to stand down from the Planning and Conservation Committee. However, he had a particular interest in the Neighbourhood Plan and therefore wished to continue as an attending member.
It was therefore AGREED that Councillor Bell stand down from this Committee but continue as an attending member as appropriate.

It was noted that Councillor Plowman was a member of the Planning and Conservation Committee.

(ii) Election of Chairman

It was proposed by Councillor Gaskin, seconded by the Mayor, put to the vote and AGREED that Councillor Plowman be Chairman of the Planning and Conservation Committee for the remainder of the Council year. There were no other nominations.

(iii) Appointment of Vice-Chairman

It was proposed by Councillor Scicluna, seconded by the Mayor, put to the vote and AGREED that Councillor Quail be Vice-Chairman of the Planning and Conservation Committee for the remainder of the Council year. There were no other nominations.

2. MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMITTEE HELD ON 29 APRIL 2021

AGREED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 April 2021 having been printed and circulated be approved and be signed by the Chairman as a correct record at a later date.

3. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

There were no apologies for absence.

4. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE IN MATTERS ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING

The following Personal Interests were declared:

• Councillor Plowman and Councillor Apel as members of Chichester District Council.
• Councillor Plowman and Councillor Scicluna as members of the CCAAC.
• Councillor Quail as a member of the Westgate Residents Association.

5. STREET NAMING AND NUMBERING

To consider the following proposals:

(i) Whitehouse Farm Phase 3D. Miller Homes

Proposed street names: Buckner Crescent and Dunstall Close

Both names follow the previous pattern of local artists

The Property Manager referred to the layout plans and plot to postal details appended to the agenda. He thanked Councillor Scicluna for her valuable local knowledge and contribution to the choice of names.

After discussion it was felt that Dunstall Place would be more appropriate than Dunstall Close. However, there was some clarification required about the numbering as it was felt that numbering for Drovers Lane should also be included.

It was therefore put to the vote and AGREED that Dunstall Place be the proposed name and that the numbering be shown for Drovers Lane. The Property Manager would advise Royal Mail accordingly.

Members were supportive of Buckner Crescent. It was therefore AGREED that this name be proposed and the Property Manager advise Royal Mail accordingly.

(ii) Whitehouse Farm Phase 3E, Miller Homes

Proposed street names: Farm Barns Lane, Nine Acres, Gobey Drive, The Cricketers, Whitegate Way, Budds Coppice Lane, Middle Mead, Tile Kiln Lane, Nine Acres.

The Property Manager referred to the layout plans and plot to postal details appended to the agenda. He said that some of the names, ie: Farm Barns Lane, Tile Kiln Lane and Gobey Drive had already received approval. The remaining names, ie: Nine Acres, Budds Coppice Lane, The Cricketers and Middle Mead were then discussed for approval.

The Chairman confirmed that these names originated from the names of fields and local landmarks.

Councillor Scicluna expressed reservations about Budds Coppice Lane and felt that Budds Copse Lane was more appropriate. The Chairman sought the views of Members who were supportive of Budds Copse Lane in place of Budds Coppice Lane.

It was therefore put to the vote and AGREED that the names, as proposed, ie: Budds Copse Lane, Nine Acres, The Cricketers and Middle Mead, be approved and the Property Manager advise Royal Mail accordingly.

6. APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Week 16 – 21 April 2021

CC/21/00713/FUL – Case Officer: William Price

Mr and Mrs Morris
Martins Farm Graylingwell Hospital College Lane Chichester
Replacement dwelling. Temporary mobile on-site accommodation.

Recommendation: No objection but we would like to see the re-use of as much of the original materials as possible.

CC/21/00951/ADV – Case Officer: Alicia Snook

Mr Darren Marshall
2C Portfield Way Chichester PO19 7YH
2no. internally LED illuminated flexface signs and 1no. internally LED illuminated tray sign.

The Planning Adviser informed members that this application had now been determined and therefore representations could no longer be made in respect of it.

Weeks 17-19 – There were no Committee items to discuss.

7. CHICHESTER CITY CENTRE PAVEMENTS – WSCC OPTIONS STUDY ON MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT

The Planning Adviser referred to the Options Study on Maintenance and Replacement of City Centre Pavements produced by West Sussex County Council and explained the criteria for the narrowed down options going forward. With the aid of a visual presentation the Planning Adviser explained that there were cost issues and ongoing maintenance to consider. The City Cross and North and East Streets were identified, and the Planning Adviser explained the high and medium cost options available. She suggested that the City Council might wish to ask about alternative surfaces which would be visually acceptable, low maintenance and, although a flat surface, would be of a high-quality textured appearance. A resin bonded aggregate surface was suggested.

Councillor Scicluna expressed concern about the current dangerous and uneven surfaces, particularly to wheelchair users, and was supportive of the resin bonded aggregate surface which had been suggested.

Councillor Scicluna left the meeting.

Councillor Quail enquired about the York Stone.

Councillor Joy commented on the lengthy timescale taken for this to be implemented. He also commented on the heavy goods vehicles which had previously caused surface damage.

Councillor Gaskin supported the Planning Adviser’s advice on the resin bonded aggregate surface.

The Chairman said that this matter needed to be expedited quickly and should be affordable and practical.

It was therefore put to the vote and AGREED:

• None of the options proposed represent an acceptable response to the re-surface requirements within Chichester City Centre. The existing paving has been in place for 50 years and is in a poor condition. We must fulfil our responsibility to residents and shoppers by finding an acceptable solution and implementing it in a timely manner.
• Consideration must be given to reducing vehicular use of all the city centre streets.
• Consideration should be given to the extension of pedestrianisation, WSCC and others involved in the resurfacing decision should see the Neighbourhood Plan highways background paper which suggests re-routing traffic in the city centre, allowing for the pedestrianisation of South Street.
• It is accepted that some areas are higher priority, and the City Council supports the priority being given to North Street, The Cross and East Street.
• In all cases, the whole width of the street should be resurfaced, rather than being treated as pavement and carriageway where the whole area is pedestrianised.
• The options suggested are limited to paving or tarmac; neither is appropriate for purpose.

This is an important city centre historic Conservation Area where there is a duty to “preserve or enhance” the character and appearance of the area. Tarmac would be unacceptable. Paving has proven unfit for purpose, with accidents occurring to pedestrians and wheelchair users due to uneven or bumpy surfacing, or the lifting of paving slabs intended to lay flat. This type of surfacing also causes difficulty to anyone with mobility, balance or sight problems (which covers many of our senior residents, very young children and anyone with an injury such as a broken leg as well as those with relevant long-term health conditions), in addition to wheelchair users, parents with pushchairs and wearers of heeled shoes or flip flops. Paving of any kind can lift, leaving a dangerous situation in an area of high foot-traffic. Paving is expensive to source, install and maintain. The high street is frequently dug up for services or repairs, and any surfacing must therefore lend itself to being repaired seamlessly, which paving does not.

• Consideration should be given to a resin-bound aggregate surface, which would provide an attractive, flat surface, facilitating use by all our residents. A resin-bound aggregate would lend itself to frequent repair which could be seamlessly reinstated to match the surrounding surface. A wide variety of colours, aggregate types and finishes are available, ensuring an appropriate appearance can be chosen.

8. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN – AN UPDATE ON PROGRESS

Councillor Bell said that other areas already had their Neighbourhood Plans in place, but the delay was well understood. He said that with the revamping of the Steering Group he stressed that the ownership of the Neighbourhood Plan remained with the City Council. He welcomed Chichester Community Network (CCN) being involved but noted the bias towards the west of Chichester.

The Chairman commented on the engagement of the community being fundamental and that the re-vamped website had enabled further progress to be made. There were several groups carrying out PLACE studies which it was hoped would be completed by the end of June.

Councillor Bell mentioned Southern Gateway amongst other Residents Associations who were now actively involved with the PLACE training.

Councillor Joy said that he was trying to resurrect the Orchard Street Residents Association.

The Planning Adviser reminded members that the Zero Carbon Viability Study needed to be moved forward.

Councillor Gaskin mentioned that she had sent out emails to try to engage people east of the city but feedback had been very disappointing.

Councillor Bell, together with Councillor Scicluna, had made contact with The Pallants, Newtown, and Eastgate Square.

The Mayor mentioned Swanfield Park Residents Neighbourhood Group (Spring) having difficulty meeting due to the closure of the Community Centre but was pleased to see the success of the outdoor coffee mornings.

The Planning Adviser said that she had previously visited the schools to promote the Neighbourhood Plan with correspondence sent home via the pupils.

The Chairman said that public engagement and PLACE training was now the main focus. The Sustainability Study was also a focus. The website would be updated regularly.

AGREED to note the current situation.

9. WHITEHOUSE FARM – FEEDBACK

The Chairman said that a meeting had taken place about the allotment site. The Phase II consultation had been proposed in two stages: (i) Principal people – west of Chichester Group who would form the initial discussion and (ii) move on to a more public meeting with exhibitions. Councillor Joy mentioned the chalk stream. The Chairman said that a meeting had been held with officers and that Councillor Apel had attended but she felt that a meeting in situ needed to be arranged to assess the situation. Councillor Joy said that Natural England were now aware and should be involved in any ongoing discussions.

Councillor Apel left the meeting.

10. LOCAL PLAN – UPDATE

There was no update for this item, pending receipt of the traffic studies, with still a great deal of work to be done. Members AGREED that in view of this that this item should now be removed as a standing item from the agenda until such time as further updates were available.

11. TIME OF FUTURE MEETINGS

The Chairman sought the views of members on changing the time of future meetings to be more in line with other Committee’s at the earlier time of 2.00pm. He felt that the earlier timing was more practicable, and that further engagement would now be possible. This was supported by members.

It was therefore put to the vote and AGREED that all future meetings of the Planning and Conservation Committee be held at the earlier time of 2.00pm. The day of Thursday would remain unchanged. The Deputy Mayor abstained from voting.

12. ITEMS TO BE INCLUDED ON AGENDA FOR NEXT MEETING

• Neighbourhood Plan – update
• White House Farm – update

13. DATE OF NEXT MEETING

Thursday 24 June 2021 at 2.00pm.

The meeting closed at 6.24pm.