Minutes – Planning and Conservation Working Group – 28 April 2022

The agenda and papers for this meeting are available here: Planning and Conservation Working Group – 28 April 2022 – 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 – 28 April 2022

NOTES OF THE VIRTUAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION WORKING GROUP HELD ON THURSDAY 28 APRIL 2022 AT 2.00PM

PRESENT:

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

EX-OFFICIO:

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

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE:

• Councillor Sharp, Planning Adviser, Member Services Support Officer, West Sussex County Councillor, Simon Oakley

Councillor Corfield attempted to join the meeting but was unable to do so due to technical difficulties.

116. APOLOGIES AND RECORD OF ABSENCE

There were no apologies for absence.

117. NOTES OF THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION WORKING GROUP MEETING HELD ON 31 MARCH 2022.

AGREED that the minutes of the meeting held on 31 March 2022, having been circulated; be approved and signed as a correct record.

At this point the Chairman introduced Agenda Item 9 due to problems with the Deputy Mayor’s internet connection.

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

Councillor Plowman declared an interest a Member of Chichester District Council and as a Member of the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Councillor Apel declared an interest as a Member of Chichester District Council.

Councillor Scicluna declared an interest as a Member of the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee on behalf of the City Council.

Councillor Quail declared an interest as Chair of Westgate Residents Association.

Councillor Gershater declared an interest as Governor of Sussex Community and NHS Trust.

119. AMENDED NATIONAL GUIDANCE ON SUSTAINABILITY FOR NEW AND REFURBISHED HOUSING

The Deputy Mayor reported on the amended Planning guidelines which affect new and refurbished housing. He illustrated his points with a Powerpoint presentation which would be circulated with the minutes.

Councillor Gershater made a point that developers had failed to recycle building materials when they had demolished old buildings and asked had The Deputy Mayor come across any guidelines which indicated developers had to do so.

The Deputy Mayor advised that from an architect’s point of view, this was essential.

He also advised that carbon neutrality was a main focus in building projects going forward.

The Deputy Mayor further explained that the guidelines meant that the Whitehouse Farm contractors or developers faced a difficult way forward to meet the regulations.

At this point the Chairman returned to the published agenda order.

120.APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING PERMISSION

Week 12

CC/21/03537/FUL – Case Officer: Maria Tomlinson

Mr Lawrence Bennett
11 Ettrick Road Chichester PO19 7DU
Erection of bungalow.

No objection.

Developers should explore all opportunities for sustainable development and carbon neutrality, including a high level of insulation as well technologies such as solar panels, ground or air source heat pumps and electric car charging points, as well as water conservation measures, where appropriate. In the interests of local ecology as well as the wider environment, trees and hedges should be retained if possible. Where these are removed, replacement planting should be carried out, with a biodiversity net gain achieved where possible.

CC/22/00426/FUL and CC/22/00427/LBC – Case Officer: Rebecca Perris

Mr Enzo Macari
Unit 4 The Buttermarket North Street Chichester West Sussex
Additional area to shop front to increase size of unit 4, the Buttermarket.

The City Council has no comment on the application. However, members note that the building, although locally referred to as the Buttermarket, is the Market House.

CC/22/00624/DOM and CC/22/00432/DOM – Case Officer: Sascha Haigh

Mr B Ragless
3 York Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 7TJ

Objection.

The proposal would result in a building which lacks legibility and appears as a semi-detached pair. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the conservation area. The porches proposed either side of the building should be removed and replaced by a central front door, which would be a more appropriate design, in keeping with the appearance of other similar properties in the road.

Objection to the proposed access alterations as the loss of a significant length of the boundary wall along the property’s frontage would unacceptably impact the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Week 13

CC/22/00291/REM – Case Officer: Jeremy Bushell

Phase 2 Of The Westhampnett/North East Chichester SDL Land North East Of Graylingwell Park Chichester West Sussex
Variation of condition 1 (approved plans) in order to enable the previously approved positions of the allotments and play areas to be swapped.

No objection.

CC/22/00308/FUL – Case Officer: Calum Thomas

Chichester Festival Theatre
Chichester Festival Theatre Broyle Road Chichester West Sussex
Bandstand for use between April and September to provide a multi-use space.

No objection subject to a condition to control the use of any associated outdoor lighting.

Developers should explore all opportunities for sustainable development and carbon neutrality, including a high level of insulation as well technologies such as solar panels, ground or air source heat pumps and electric car charging points, as well as water conservation measures, where appropriate. In the interests of local ecology as well as the wider environment, trees and hedges should be retained if possible. Where these are removed, replacement planting should be carried out, with a biodiversity net gain achieved where possible.

Week 14

CC/22/00160/FUL – Case Officer: Maria Tomlinson

Land At Royal Close Chichester West Sussex
Construction of 1 no. two-bedroom flat with storage area and under croft (block H).

No objection.

Developers should explore all opportunities for sustainable development and carbon neutrality, including a high level of insulation as well technologies such as solar panels, ground or air source heat pumps and electric car charging points, as well as water conservation measures, where appropriate. In the interests of local ecology as well as the wider environment, trees and hedges should be retained if possible. Where these are removed, replacement planting should be carried out, with a biodiversity net gain achieved where possible.

CC/22/00831/TPA – Case Officer: Henry Whitby

9 Wall Cottage Drive Chichester West Sussex PO19 1QQ
Fell 1 no. Copper Beech tree (T1) subject to CC/10/00117/TPO.

No objection subject to the approval of the Tree Officer.

Members have requested that, as hollowed out trees can be excellent wildlife habitats, landowners be encouraged to consider retaining as much of the trunk as possible, rather than removing it altogether. However, it is noted that professional advice would need to be heeded in this case regarding the retention of any part of the tree, due to the fungal infection.

Week 15

CC/22/00849/FUL – Case Officer: Louise Brace

Bridge At Lavant View Chichester West Sussex
Replacement bridge.

No objection.

121. NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN UPDATE

The Chairman advised there was very little to add since the previous working group was held although it was noted that they were moving onto the next phase which was putting together the policy work group. Most of the PLACE studies had been done and mapped out. Everything was noted as moving forward according to plan.

Councillor Sharp asked if anything could be learned from Hunston’s Neighbourhood Plan which was recently rejected and asked how much had been spent.

The Chairman responded that these points should be discussed in the Steering Committee. He further explained that £70,000 had already been spent and another £30,000 had be reallocated which brought the total to £100,000.

122. WHITEHOUSE FARM UPDATE

The Planning Advisor advised she had chased the developer for occupied house numbers however, the individual with this information from Chichester District Council was unavailable for six weeks so, there were no confirmed numbers. She added she would have the updated numbers for the next meeting.

Councillor Apel noted she had spoken with Nick Billington at the opening of the Country Park who represents the planning side of both developers and that he had estimated over 125 houses were inhabited and 30 to 40 were under offer.

The Chairman emphasized the importance of knowing these numbers as when the 200th dwelling was completed, they should be connected to the mains drainage.

The Chairman reminded councillors that the Country Park opened on 22 April, and it had been a very nice event.

Councillor Gershater asked if there was a definitive statement as to what NHS healthcare provision was going to be. Councillor Apel advised that the YMCA would take over the community centre and there would be a possibility of a consultation room if a doctor agreed to participate, however no GP surgery in Chichester had offered. She also noted she had been in contact with a central body of the Health Authority to arrange a meeting to discuss GPs in the area.

The Chairman thanked Councillor Apel and emphasized that this was a big issue for residents.

123. RAVEN (Residents Against Vehicle Excessive Noise)

The Chairman invited Councillor Sharp to provide an update. Councillor Sharp advised that paper forms had been distributed and had proven to be informative and gained responses. She further advised she would send out the most recent report and minutes once they had been confirmed.

124. PAVEMENTS IN THE CITY CENTRE UPDATE

The Chairman advised a decision was expected soon on the pavements following a Growth Group meeting which would be held in two weeks’ time.

125. NUMBER PLATE RECOGNITION SCHEME

The Chairman invited Councillor Quail to speak and noted the accompanying report that had previously been circulated.
Councillor Quail explained that this scheme had come about through residents in the Westgate area becoming frustrated about the traffic and ‘rat runners’ they had to deal with. This scheme had been based on a similar successful scheme operated in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.

She further explained that this scheme was subject to regulations which did not currently apply outside of London and that support in principle would be helpful while they awaited a response from The Department for Transport.

Councillor Gaskin advised she took on board the issues outlined however, she could not agree to this proposal and advised that she felt uneasy with the idea of a public road being turned into a gated community.

Councillor Sharp raised questions about the scheme such as of who would bear the cost, what postcodes would be included, did we know the views of West Sussex County Council and could Councillor Quail elaborate on what was meant in her report about the scheme had city wide implications.

The Chairman noted this scheme was at a very early stage.

Councill Quail advised the small working party which went to Hammersmith and Fulham had one of West Sussex County Councillor’s Traffic Officers with them and he was very impressed with the scheme. She further advised that a trial scheme could be implemented with very little cost to taxpayers. She explained the cameras which would be used would be leased and they could be easily rigged. With regards to staff time spend on the scheme, Councillor Quail advised that Hammersmith and Fulham had half a Full Time Equivalent officer who issued tickets.

Councillor Quail referred to the report and advised that this scheme included plenty of latitude so that friends, family, carers etc. could apply for permits to utilise the road. She then responded to Councillor Gaskin’s phrase of a ‘gated road’ and advised that this was a traffic calming measure and not a gated project.

The Chairman summarised the point’s made and suggested there was evidence this road was being used as a rat run. He gave his support for it to be investigated as a West Sussex County Council Community Traffic Scheme.

He also expressed support for the type of scheme proposed and about other examples of implementation. It was then proposed, seconded and RESOLVED TO RECOMMEND to Full Council on 29 June 2022 that the Westgate Numberplate recognition scheme be developed as a West Sussex County Council Community Highway Project.

126. BRANDY HOLE LANE CONSULTATION

The Chairman introduced this item and invited the Planning Advisor to brief the Committee along with a PowerPoint she had prepared.

The Planning Advisor explained this was a scheme for closing off Brandy Hole Lane at the eastern end and it was a West Sussex County Council application. She then recommended that the City Council should not support the proposal as this road was used as a logical and useful route as opposed to rat running. It did not appear this was a problem to resolve and that it would result in creased city traffic should the proposal go ahead.

There was a brief discussion amongst Councillors where they expressed opposition to this proposal.

Councillor Sharp queried whether the bollards would be able to go down in case of emergency vehicle requirements. The Planning Adviser noted this and agreed to add this to the comments as there were no details provided in the proposal
The Chairman agreed that they had to be firm in their recommendation to object this proposal.

127. ITEMS FOR INCLUSION ON NEXT AGENDA

• Whitehouse Farm – update
• Pavements – update
• Councillor Apel to give an update on the Medical Situation
• Southern Gateway issues – update
• Councillor Oakley to report on sewage arrangements for the new developments east of the A27
• Oving lights changes – update

DATE OF NEXT ORDINARY MEETING: THURSDAY 26 MAY 2022

The meeting closed at 4.20pm