Welcome to the large text version of Birdham Parish Council website. If you are here by mistake please follow this link to return to the standard layout.
Welcome to the dyslexia friendly version of Birdham Parish Council website. If you are here by mistake please follow this link to return to the standard layout.
Welcome to the Non Styling version of Birdham Parish Council website. If you are here by mistake please follow this link to return to the standard layout.
Birdham Parish Council > Minutes > Minutes of the Planning Committee held on the 22nd December 2014

Minutes of the Planning Committee held on the 22nd December 2014

Birdham Parish Council

 Minutes of the Planning Committee

 held on Monday 22nd December 2014

at 7pm in Birdham Village Hall

 Present:                       Cllr Barker, Cllr Cobbold (Chairman), Cllr Churchill, Cllr Ayton, Cllr Finch.

Apologies:                   Cllr Brooks and Cllr Montyn (WSCC & CDC)

Ex-Officio:                   Cllr Pocock (Chairman of Council) and Cllr Hamilton (Vice Chairman of Council).

In attendance:              The Clerk, Cllr Marshall (CDC) and 31 Residents.

P12-14 Declaration of Interests.

There were none.

P13-14 Correspondence relevant to Planning, if any.

There were none.

P14-14 Planning applications to be decided.

BI/14/02662/OUT – Mr & Mrs Paul Knappett, Koolbergen & Ramsay, Bell Lane, Birdham

Outline application for the erection of 81 houses, B1 floor space, retail and open space with the retention of 1 dwelling.

Prior to the Council debating the application the Chairman asked for any comments from the residents present, should they wish to make any.

Mr Trevor Buttress – the owner of Bellfield Nursery – said that the planning application took into consideration his land. He wished it known that he does not intend to develop his land now or at any time in the immediate future and he was not part of the application consortium.

The floor was then opened up to others who wished to comment on the application.

A number of residents were very concerned about the sewage and flooding situation which may well be exacerbated by this application should it go ahead.

The Chairman of the BEFPG was liaising with Southern Water to resolve these ongoing issues but it was taking a lot of time.

Many residents were very concerned about the size and numbers of the application especially when the applications for the Tawny and Rowan Nursery sites were taken into consideration.

There are no school places, either primary or secondary which would mean a considerable increase in commuter traffic.

The residents of Somerley are extremely concerned if the application is moved further south as this would then impact on the conservation area and equates to a 300% increase in housing numbers within Bell Lane.

The application was outside of the village envelope and should not be considered until strategic problems with roads, water and sewage systems had been resolved.

Many considered that the waste water system was already having an adverse impact on the harbour – one of the few employment opportunities in the area – which would come under greater threat by the increase in population.

A resident said that the application must be decided upon planning grounds rather than emotional ones and quoted a number of examples such as density, infrastructure, traffic, educational facilities and so on.

There being no further comments from residents or interested parties the Chairman then opened the debate to members of the Council.

Cllr Pocock was concerned at the shortness of time given to the Council on what is a major development. He asked the Clerk if it was possible to obtain an extension to the response dead line. The Clerk said that he had already submitted a request to CDC Planning for an extension of time until the 22nd January 2015. He felt that this was likely to be granted and would be sufficient time for the Council to come to a conclusion

Cllr Pocock then went on to say that he had looked in detail at the application and could find nothing in the Submitted Neighbourhood Plan, the Submitted Local Plan or the NPPF which would give support to this application. He suggested that the Council should not make a response to the application until sufficient time had been given to study the implications and said that the Council should make its final decision at the January meeting of the Council and consider an interim response.

Cllr Finch said that she had been very involved in the research and drafting of the Submitted Neighbourhood Plan. There was no evidence that the applicants had paid any regard to the content of the plan and had not consulted with either the Parish Council or the Steering Group of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Cllr Barker considered that sufficient had been said without repeating previous comments.

Cllr Churchill said that he agreed with the comments made by previous speakers. He agreed that there was a need for affordable housing, he was also very concerned on the potential traffic impact.

Cllr Hamilton said that she agreed with all that had been said earlier and added that the application was outside of the SPA and the AONB.

Cllr Ayton said that he was quite insulted that the applicant had not consulted and was very disappointed with the application. There was insufficient schooling or healthcare in the area, it would add to the already high levels of pollution and traffic problems, there was little or no employment to be had in the area.

Cllr Cobbold said that the application failed to comply with most of the policies contained within the submitted Neighbourhood Plan which had been seen by CDC. The development would create a secondary settlement area.

It was resolved that an interim response is submitted to CDC if the expected extension to the time limit is not forthcoming.

It was resolved that the preliminary response to the application should be to strongly object to the application as it conflicts with policies contained within the Submitted Neighbourhood Plan and the Submitted Local Plan together with areas of Strategic Concern. The specific details would be submitted directly to CDC in further correspondence should the expected time extension not be granted and to the Parish Council on the 19th January 2015 if the extension is granted.

(Post meeting note – The requested extension to the response time of the 22nd January 2015 was granted)

P15-14  Delegated Decisions (if any) to be noted.

There were none.

P16-13 Date of next meeting – TBA

 

There being no further business to discuss the meeting closed at 8.15pm

 

Signed ___________________________   Dated ____________________

Chairman