Agenda for the meeting of Birdham Parish Council on the 17th October 2011
Birdham Parish Council
28 Langdale Avenue, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8JQ
Tel : 01243 790402 Fax : 01243 784478
Clerk to the Council : David J Siggs
MEETING OF THE PARISH COUNCIL
I hereby give you notice that a Meeting of Birdham Parish Council is to be held on Monday 17th October 2011 in the Main Hall at Birdham Village Hall at 7pm and all members of the Council are hereby summoned to attend
David J Siggs – Clerk to the Council
1. Apologies for absence
2. Urgent/Additional items notified to the Chairman or the Clerk prior to the meeting
3. Public Question Time. (In accordance with Standing Orders 1d – 1l )
4. Declaration of interests
5. Approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 19th September 2011
6. Affordable Housing – Sam Irving CDC
7. Land bequeathed to the Council
8. Clerk’s Report including:
i) WSCC Reports, highways matters and correspondence
ii) CDC reports including correspondence
iii) Other related matters
v) Reports from Members of WSCC/CDC if appropriate
9. Planning matters including CDC Applications and Decisions
BI/11/02869/ADV Mr Peter Lansdale Premier Business Park Birdham Road
1 no. forecourt sign.
BI/11/03687/DOM Mr Kenneth Swayne Pentlands 5 Burlow Close Birdham
Retrospective application for the retention of the wooden trellis fencing to south side of property.
BI/11/02728/FUL Birdham Nursery School Birdham C Of E Primary School Crooked Lane Birdham Nursery school building. WITHDRAWN
i) Play area and playing field
ii) Village green and pond
iii) Police & Neighbourhood Watch
iv) Communications/Parish Newsletter
To receive and approve a financial report
To consider re-appointing Ms E O’Flanagan as the Councils Internal Auditor.
13. Reports of meetings attended by councillors
14. Items for inclusion in next meeting.
THE PUBLIC HAVE A RIGHT TO ATTEND ALL MEETINGS
OF THE COUNCIL AND ARE WELCOME
Proposed Responses to the Planning Applications
BI/11/03687/DOM 5 Burlow Close, Birdham
This is a retrospective application for the retention of the trellis fence arising, we assume, out of a refused application (BI/11/01761/DOM).
The application lies within the Birdham SPA and the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Burlow Close is a private road composed mainly of bungalows. The front gardens are unfenced but are fringed here and there by shrubs. The application site lies at the corner of the dog-leg in the road and so is both side-on and facing the road on the south and west sides respectively. A close boarded fence has been erected from the road on the south side and marks the rear (eastern) curtilage of the property. The trellis fence is along the south side of the property together with a shrub hedge and certainly affects the streetscape of Burlow Close. Policies BE 13 (sections 3 and 4) could apply here. However, this is the only house in the Close to be exposed to the road on two sides and we consider that the present hedge and trellis afford reasonable privacy in these particular circumstances. We would not wish to see the open character of the Close spoilt by the creation of a precedent which would encourage other residents to enclose their front gardens at random but we raise NO OBJECTION to this particular application.
BI/11/02869/ADV Lansdale Marine, Birdham Road, Birdham
Te site lies outside the Birdham SPA and within the Chichester Harbour Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Yamaha sign was erected two or three months ago and this application seeks to regularise that situation.
This section of road is an Area of Special Control for Advertisements. Policy BE9 therefore applies. A precedent was established along this section of the road by application BI/10/00516/ADV where Mr Froud was refused his retrospective application for a modest, hand-painted sign for his pine furniture business. PPG19 states, in addition to the criteria in LPA Policy BE9, that amenity and public safety must be taken into account.
The first assessment under PPG19 is the effect on the visual amenity in the immediate neighbourhood and the characteristics of that neighbourhood. This sign is on the roadside at a small retail park which has been established at the edge of the AONB in a rural environment characterised by trees, fields and hedges. This Council has sought to minimise the visual intrusion into a gateway site for the village but there have been frequent complaints about both the businesses on this site and the breaking of development conditions on advertising, forecourt retail sales and the poor condition of the roadside hedge which was intended to soften the intrusion into the landscape. If Mr Froud’s sign was unacceptable, so is this one.
Is this sign so distracting or confusing that it creates a hazard or endangers people taking reasonable care? If the answer is no it is only because there are already so many other distractions, some of which contravene planning law.
On the basis of PPG 19, and LPA policies BE9 and RE4 the Council OBJECTS to this application.