Parish: Ward: Selsey Selsey North
SY/14/02186/OUTEIA
Proposal Hybrid planning application for comprehensive mixed use development of land at Manor Road. Full application for Class A1 foodstore, car parking, Class A3/A4 pub/restaurant, petrol filling station, new access, landscaping and ancillary works. Outline planning application for up to 144 dwellings, hotel, Class D1 building, open space, landscaping and new access.
Site Park Farm Park Lane Selsey Chichester West Sussex PO20 0HF
Map Ref (E) 486495 (N) 94234
Applicant Mr M Fletcher
RECOMMENDATION TO DELEGATE TO OFFICERS
Note: Do not scale from map. For information only. Reproduced NOT TO from the Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the SCALE controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Crown Copyright. License No. 100018803
1 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral
Major application on which Officers consider decision should be by Committee Red Card Cllr Robertson - Exceptional level of public interest
2.0 The Site and Surroundings
2.1 The application site is situated on the northern edge of Selsey adjacent to the Settlement Policy Area Boundary which is formed by Manor Road. It comprises 9.05 hectares of agricultural land in total and is mostly flat incorporating a fall of approximately 3 metres from north-west to south-east. It is bounded to the north by the unmade Park Lane and the Nature's Way factory, to the west by the B2145 Chichester Road and Manor Road and to the east by Manor Lane. To the south lies the commercial development at Ellis Square.
2.2 The site comprises two distinct parcels of land separated by a substantial hedgerow and drainage ditch. The smaller land parcel comprises 1.54 hectares and the larger parcel 7.51 hectares. The site perimeter is predominantly enclosed by native hedgerows including hedgerow trees. There is an existing field access on the west boundary to Manor Road. The distinctive detached 2 storey property 'Four Ways' (or Show House) is sited adjacent to the north-west corner of the site. The two adjoining fields, which make up the application site, fall within Class 2 and 3a of the Agricultural Land Classification. The site is located within the Environment Agency's Flood Zone 1 as having the lowest potential risk of fluvial or tidal flooding.
2.3 No statutory nature conservation designations are located within or immediately adjacent to the site itself. The nearest such designation to the site is the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site which is located approximately 650 metres east of the site. The SPA/Ramsar site is also designated as a SSSI and Local Nature Reserve.
3.0 The Proposal
3.1 The re-development of the site is proposed within a hybrid planning application comprising both commercial and residential elements. The elements to be considered in full and outline are set out as follows:
Full Application
- A foodstore of 1,949 sqm (GEA) 1,866 sqm (GIA) (2-2.5 storeys) high with service yard - An automated four pump petrol filling station with canopy (no kiosk) and below ground fuel storage tanks - Two 1.5 storey high A3/A4 pub/restaurant units totalling 473 sqm (Unit 1- 139 sqm/ Unit 2- 278 sqm) - 176 customer parking spaces which include: - 10 parent/child spaces - 9 disabled bays - 2 electric vehicle bays - 3 click and collect spaces - Cycle stands for 25 bicycles
2 Outline Application
Outline planning permission is sought for 144 dwellings. The proposed housing mix is as follows:
58 (40%) affordable dwellings comprising; - 8 x 1 bed flats - 20 x 2 bed houses - 22 x 3 bed houses - 8 x 4 bed houses
86 private dwellings comprising; - 7 x 1 bed flats - 21 x 2 bed houses - 41 x 3 bed houses - 17 x 4 bed houses
- The residential density of development is approximately 20 dwellings per hectare. - 285 car parking spaces are to be provided (includes garages).
3.2 Additionally the outline proposals include the following development;
- 40 bed Hotel - 1368 sqm (GIA) - 18 parking bays - Multi Use Clinic - 195 sqm (GIA) - 16 parking bays - Surface water swale/balancing pond in south-east corner of site - Public open space including equipped playspace - 1 km perimeter dog walking track
3.3 'Access' is the only matter for consideration under the outline part of the application with layout, scale, appearance and landscaping being reserved matters. Three points of vehicular access are proposed. As part of the full application a new access is proposed off the existing roundabout at the junction of Manor Road and the B2145. The position of the roundabout itself would be be adjusted to ensure that vehicle movements and safety considerations as a result of the proposed development are addressed. The existing field access off Manor Road is to be improved and this will be the primary access from the west to the site. At the eastern site boundary provision for a future connection to Manor Lane at its junction with Drift Road is proposed. Two pedestrian access points are proposed along the north site boundary giving access onto Park Lane.
3.4 The following improvements to highway infrastructure also form part of the proposals:
- widening of the Ferry Bends on the B2145 to facilitate two way movements by large vehicles, given the increase in HGV movements associated with servicing the new foodstore - 3 x new bus stop laybys; 1 on the B2145 at the site, 1 adjacent to Farringdon Barn and 1 at Coles Farm - a new toucan crossing on Manor Road to provide cycle access to both the food store and residential phases of development - a new cycle route north from the Manor Road/Chichester Road roundabout adjacent to the B2145 to connect into the wider cycle network
3 4.0 History
11/04954/OUT REF Outline application for 50 dwellings, access, landscaping and associated works
12/00080/REF ALLOW Outline application for 50 dwellings, access, landscaping and associated works
5.0 Constraints
Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area YES AONB NO Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO EA Flood Zone NO - Flood Zone 2 NO - Flood Zone 3 NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO
6.0 Representations and Consultations
6.1 Selsey Town Council
This application was taken in two parts -
SY/14/02186/OUTEIA (Detailed Full Application Proposals) Hybrid planning application for comprehensive mixed use development of land at Manor Road. Full application for Class A1 foodstore, car parking, Class A3/A4 pub/restaurant, petrol filling station, new access, landscaping and ancillary works.
The Committee SUPPORT this application
SY/14/02186/OUTEIA (Outline Application Proposals) Hybrid planning application for comprehensive mixed use development of land at Manor Road. Outline planning application for up to 159 dwellings, hotel, Class D1 building, open space, landscaping and new access.
The Committee SUPPORT IN PRINCIPLE this application on CONDITION that the density of the dwellings be reduced to 90 as indicated in the draft Selsey Neighbourhood Plan; that existing hedgerows and trees be retained; that the following land is given for improvements to the B2145 as part of the Transport and Infrastructure S106 Contributions -
1. Land on western side of B2145 adjacent to Ferry bend for widening/bend shallowing works 2. Land alongside B2145 to enable relocation of bus stops and slow moving vehicles off of the main carriageway at the site of existing bus stops as follows:
4 B2145 North and southbound, due south of junction with Rectory Lane adjacent to Natures Way Foods B2145 North and southbound outside Trident Business Park B2145 North and southbound outside Comptons farm shop B2145 North and southbound outside Ferry Industrial Yard/Knight Fencing 200m x 5m strip of land from the end of Golf Links Lane, running south to chain bridge sluice to connect to Medmerry scheme - for leisure walking/cycle links from North Selsey into Medmerry 4. Land for commuting cycle path from Selsey to join existing route from Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve;
that the following schemes form part of the Transport and Infrastructure S106 Contributions -
1. Subject to availability of land - delivery of Ferry bend widening scheme 2. Subject to availability of land - delivery of bus and tractor pull off points/stops 3. Subject to availability of land - delivery of a commuting cycle route to Pagham Harbour Local Nature Reserve 4. Purchase of land and creation of new bus stop on northbound B2145, north of Lockgate Road before junction with B2201 5. Purchase of land and creation of new bus stop on southbound B2145 between Southover Way and Meadow Close 6. Widening of the B2145 for 100m north and south of the junction with Foxbridge Drive, Hunston, to enable the passing of long vehicles on opposite carriageways 7. Funding for a forward plan for the B2145 to consider road and safety improvements along its length 8. Creation and signage for a designated on road cycle route from the new developments to Selsey Town Centre 9. Public realm improvements leading to and within Selsey High Street including wider, improved pedestrian areas/pavements and better footpath signage 10. Creation of a safe crossing point on Manor Road between junction with Chichester Road and Ellis Square, enabling pedestrian access to/from Park Farm and Drift Field 11. Traffic calming measures on Manor Road
Following concerns raised by the Environment Agency regarding the proposed petrol filling station, the Committee wish to add a further comment that any attempt to site the fuel tanks above ground would create issues regarding visual aesthetics, safety and security and the Committee would strongly object to any move to do so and feel that a solution would have to be found allowing the tanks to be sited below ground.
6.2 Sidlesham Parish Council
The PC wish to object in principle to the scale and mix of development proposed on the above site.
This objection is primarily centred on the highway and drainage infrastructure and its frailty to support the development.
Whilst it is appreciated that much of this proposal reflects the aspirations of Selsey as highlighted in their emerging Neighbourhood Plan its realisation cannot be considered solely as a Selsey issue.
5 With Selsey as the primary settlement on the Manhood Peninsula, any significant development in the town impacts on the whole peninsula. In this case, factors such as the accumulative effect of increased traffic, demands on the foul drainage system, community issues such as health and education services and general environmental considerations all need to be taken into account.
CDC seeks to address these issues by its range of policies. However, the timing of this application pre-empts the inquiry into these policies and is of a scale and significance to distort their eventual outcome.
The particular issues that surround the B2145 have been stated many times by this council and whilst being recognised by, for instance, actions such as WSCC's Traffic Regulation Order restricting vehicle speed within Sidlesham it is the bitter and increasing impacts that the road has on communities that it passes through that is the real measure of its non-sustainability. For a large period of the day it is becoming impossible for the less able to cross the road or for vehicles to enter onto it from adjoining properties. This is especially due to the constant two-way flow of traffic.
The council would wish that a full traffic management study is undertaken jointly with WSCC and CDC linked to the Local Plan. This should also be in collaboration with the Peninsula Forum and Partnership and Neighbourhood Plans. This may be an item that can be sponsored through the WSCC County Local Committee with developer contribution through Section 106.
In terms of foul drainage Southern Water continue to indicate "headroom" on capacity at the Sidlesham Water Treatment Works but with any significant rainfall large sections of the foul drainage cease to function.
It is of some consolation that for once the developer has recognised the wide impacts of the development on, for instance, the road infrastructure. The parish council would therefore, should this develop be approved, wish to see this recognised impact mitigated by improvements to traffic management in Sidlesham. It will therefore be suggesting to the developer a number of measures that through a Section 106 agreement may be included in Heads of Terms that may form part of an eventual permission should this be the outcome.
6.3 Hunston Parish Council
Hunston Parish Council would not normally comment on applications outside of the Parish. However in this instance the application will have a significant impact on the residents of Hunston and the Parish Council feels it appropriate to comment. Hunston Parish Council objects to this application on the following grounds. - A large percentage of the traffic leaving Selsey comes along the B2145 to reach the A27. Traffic is frequently backed up through Hunston village which has an impact on the safety and operation of the strategic road network in particular the A27/B2145 Whyke roundabout. This development will significantly add to these problems. - Para 32 of the NPPF requires that where a development creates significant amounts of movement it should take into account that; 'improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are
6 severe'. The Parish Council believes that the introduction of a further 159 dwelling alongside a supermarket, hotel and petrol station will have a significant and severe impact on the local road network through Hunston where road improvements are unachievable due to the proximity of dwellings to the road. - For the reason stated above the proposal also fails to meet the requirements of Policy 39 of the draft Chichester Local Plan. - Hunston Parish Council does not believe that this development is sustainable due to the significant creation of traffic movements. - Sustainable developments would be placed near to local opportunities to work to reduce pressure on local roads. Jobs within Selsey itself and on the Peninsula as a whole have a tendency to be seasonal and are typically low paid. The Transport Assessment suggestion that jobs would be available hugely overestimates the availability of jobs in the area. Data appears to be based on the 2001 census which is significantly out of date. The reality of the situation is that the majority of people will be employed in the city of Chichester or beyond and therefore will add significantly to the increase in traffic on the road network. - Para 34 of the NPPF states that; 'decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised'. A development where the majority of residents cannot find well paid local work, where the only sustainable mode of transport is a bus service and most residents would use their cars to get to work thereby increasing an already over used road network is not sustainable. - Para 39 of the NPPF states that; 'where practical, particularly with large scale developments, key facilities such as primary schools and local shops should be located within walking distance of most properties. Selsey only has two primary schools which are currently oversubscribed. This means new families moving into the Town are likely to have to drive their children to school adding further congestion to the road network. - The Transport Assessment provided is flawed in that it does not mention the impact of traffic coming to Selsey to use the proposed Asda store. With the nearest Asda stores being Havant to the west and Ferring to the east it is likely that people will travel from Chichester/Bognor and the surrounding areas to use an Asda supermarket. - Hunston Parish Council would urge the undertaking of an up to date independent traffic assessment that covers the entire length of the B2145 from the junction of the A27 to Selsey to establish the current impact of the traffic, on pedestrians, cyclists and other road users, before permission is granted to any further developments along or at the end of this very busy road.
Hunston Parish Council therefore urges the District Council Planning Committee to reject this application.
6.4 North Mundham Parish Council
North Mundham Parrish Council would not normally comment on applications outside the parish and its immediate neighbours. However this particular application, if it is allowed to proceed, will have widespread repercussions over the whole of the Manhood peninsula. We are particularly concerned about the effect of this proposed development on traffic flows.
It is apparent that the B2145 is already over-burdened. Though we note that, in its response, Selsey Town Council has asked for a number of proposed improvements
7 to the route, none of them will do anything to reduce the sheer volume of traffic. Although the proposed development may generate a number of local employment opportunities, we do not believe that they will provide sufficient additional employment to justify a further 159 dwellings, many of whose occupants will swell the numbers travelling out of Selsey for work. We note too that a proposed shopping development is quite likely to increase traffic from outside Selsey. In this context we note that many of the 'support letters' for this proposal are merely a ticked list in an identical pro forma document in support of an Asda store.
Parishes in the Manhood have long argued that development on the Peninsula should be restrained unless and until the appropriate infrastructure improvements are in place. In this case, we would submit that the existing road infrastructure is already inadequate, to the detriment of the quality of life in all the communities through which it passes. We have seen no proposals to mitigate the effect of further development, and without the introduction of radical measures such as the reintroduction of the Selsey Tram route we see no prospect of relieving the existing over-burdened road network.
This principle of no further development without infrastructure improvement would be violated, yet again, if this proposed development is allowed to proceed.
6.5 Donnington Parish Council
Donnington Parish Council objects to this application on four distinct grounds:
Severe Traffic Impact Donnington PC's primary objection is due to the impact the development will have on the already critical traffic situation in our Parish.
Donnington Parish includes the A286/B2201 "Selsey Tram" junction and the Stockbridge Road (A286) approach to the Stockbridge Roundabout of the A27. Both already suffer extreme cogestion from long tailbacks at peak times (which includes summer weekends due to traffic for the popular beach at West Wittering). Traffic backing up here can and does impact upon the safety and operation of the strategic road network, in particular the A27/A286 Stockbridge Roundabout. This development will feed more traffic onto the A286 via the B2201 which traffic to and from Selsey often use
Donnington PC considers that this development will have a severe impact to traffic in our parish and on the strategic road network.
Paragraph 32 of the NPPF[3] requires that where a development creates significant amounts of movement it should be taken account that: 'improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development.'. The key roundabouts and junctions in Donnington Parish are already creaking under the weight of traffic and self-evidently there is no practical scope for making these more efficient. If there were, this bottle neck would have ceased to be a pinch point some years ago.
For this reason the proposed development cannot meet the criteria in paragraph 32 of the NPPF. For the same reason this development can never satisfy multiple requirements of Policy 39 of the Chichester Local Plan[4].
8 Air Quality The continuous volume of traffic also severely affects air quality and the A286/A27 roundabout junction has already been declared by Chichester District Council for failure of the Government's air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide.
Sustainability The unsustainable nature of the proposed development has a direct effect on Donnington Parish due to the creation of traffic. A sustainable development would be one placed near to local opportunities to work to reduce pressure on local roads for years to come.
In fact there are few jobs on the Peninsula and the jobs that come up are typically low paid and often seasonal. If successive Transport Assessment of the chances of finding work on the peninsula were correct, nearly half of the development's residents would need to cross the Stockbridge roundabout pinch point by car. However, these assessments woefully underestimate the distribution of jobs in the area. It is based on the 2001 census. In the intervening period there has been much housing development on the Peninsular, some firms (including Cobham Aerospace) have closed down and little new work has been created. The dubious basis of these figures leads to the incorrect assumption that more people from the development will find work locally than in the City of Chichester.
Close to 80% of commuting journeys between 5 and 50 miles are undertaken by car [5] and the development is not within reasonable walk or cycle ride of the nearest Train Station so the overwhelming majority of these commuters would negotiate the bottleneck at the Stockbridge Roundabout by car.
Paragraph 34 of the NPPF states "decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised."
A development where the vast majority of residents cannot find local work and must instead aggravate a notorious traffic hot spot is not sustainable.
Density Although the density of the site does not directly affect Donnington the Parish Council are interested in the quality of the area we live in and there seems little doubt that, if permitted, this will be an overcrowded, cramped development. This is primarily because dense housing cannot integrate with this traditionally rural setting.
Conclusion To conclude Donnington PC think it's useful to consider just one statement from the NPPF. Developments must: "function well and add to the overall quality of the area, not just for the short term but over the lifetime of the development".
This development will be over crowded; it will languish the opposite side of a traffic bottleneck from the resident's employment and the majority of their leisure pursuits and it will reduce quality of life for everyone on the Peninsular. Rather than adding to the quality of the area it will detract from it.
The NPPF and the Chichester Local Plan contain requirements to safeguard us from unsuitable developments. This development cannot meet several of these requirements. It should be rejected.
9 6.6 Highways England (formerly Highways Agency)
No Objection.
6.7 Natural England
Provided this development falls within the agreed strategic approach [for off-site recreational mitigation] and your Council can secure adequate contributions from the applicant towards the strategy it should be possible to deliver an acceptable package of avoidance mitigation measures.
The following package of on-site and off-site mitigation measures including the provision of in-perpetuity wardening, will enable Chichester District Council to conclude no likely significant effect on Pagham Harbour SPA from recreational disturbance.
Off-site - Contribution to provision of a part-time, all year round warden post (to be provided in perpetuity and in place prior to first occupation of homes) - Contribution to delivery of access management, education and interpretation - Contribution to signage - Monitoring
On-site The following on-site measures have been agreed and are considered acceptable mitigation for recreational disturbance for this proposal - a dog walking route around the site boundary - an off- lead dog exercise area - educational packs for new residents.
Following an assessment of the value of the site as SPA supporting habitat, NE accept the report that Park Farm is unlikely to be used as a functional habitat by Brent Geese.
On the basis that both on-site and off-site mitigation measures relating to recreational disturbance will be secured from the applicant and will be in place on occupation of the first dwellings, Natural England withdraws its holding objection to the development at Park Farm.
6.8 Environment Agency
The revised drainage strategy operates under gravity and therefore does not require a pump to discharge surface water. We therefore remove our previous objection to this proposed development. [Planning Officer comment: the previous objection related to the proposal for pumped surface water drainage]
6.9 Southern Water Services
Public sewer crosses the site and the exact position must be determined before the final layout is finalised. There is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to service the development. Additional off-site sewers or improvements to sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity to service the development. The
10 appropriate infrastructure can be secured through the separate legal mechanism of S.98 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Condition and Informative recommended to this effect.
6.10 Sussex Police
Various comments/recommendations made about the layout to ensure good access, surveillance and security. Additionally a contribution of £31,521 is sought toward the costs of improving the local police infrastructure to meet and service the needs of the development.
6.11 NHS PCT
Request made for a contribution of £63,893 to enhance health infrastructure in response to anticipated demands from residents of the new development.
6.12 WSCC - Highways
Summary It is considered that the proposed development accords with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and no objection is raised, subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement.
Access Access to the foodstore is to be taken through modification to the existing roundabout junction of Manor Road and Chichester Road where an additional arm is to be introduced in the north east corner. The size of the roundabout will be increased within land under the control of the Applicant or within the highway boundary. Capacity testing of the revised arrangement has been undertaken which demonstrates that the roundabout will work well within theoretical operating capacity. Access to the residential aspect of the development, phase 2, is proposed through a simple priority junction by upgrading the existing field access. The LHA are satisfied with the principle of a simple priority junction access at this location. Satisfactory visibility can be achieved in both directions.
Traffic Impact The Chichester District Council Local Plan (LP) establishes an allocation of 150 dwellings in Selsey. Of this, 50 dwellings are already permitted through the original Park Farm development proposal and an additional 110 dwellings have been permitted through development to the north of Drift Road. Permission that was granted on appeal for 50 dwellings on the original Park Farm development site would be superseded should permission be granted, therefore, the proposal seeks permission for an additional 104 dwellings in excess of the LP allocation for Selsey. As the housing allocation has been met it is therefore necessary to consider the cumulative traffic impact that the proposed development would have on the LP traffic flows. The traffic assessment anticipates circa 90 movements for the residential element during the peak network hours. Movements generated by the hotel and A3 use will occur primarily outside of network hours. The foodstore would generate circa 315 movements in the peak hour. The foodstore is a key component of the traffic assessment. With the exception of Budgens located off Selsey High Street, the Peninsula does not have a large supermarket. The Retail Impact Assessment identifies that a majority of the proposed stores' trade will be drawn from the existing supermarkets located to the south of Chichester, approximately 8 miles from the site.
11 The applicants survey of the existing shopping habits in Selsey revealed that 75% currently shop in Chichester or Bognor for the main food shop. Using the 75% as a guide, on the basis of the 315 movements that are anticipated to the proposed store during peak hours some 230 movements could currently be served from stores off the peninsula and therefore require trips through the previously identified sensitive junctions. Proposed store will reduce the need for both new and existing residents to travel off the Peninsula for large food retail purchases, offsetting the impact generated by the residential aspect of the development. The LHA do not therefore consider that the proposed development will have a severe cumulative impact, as set out in paragraph 32 of the NPPF, on the operation of the local network in capacity terms and when considered cumulatively with the traffic flows associated with the LP.
Accessibility and Highway Improvements The allocation of residential development has been considered through the Selsey 'Neighbourhood Plan' (NP). The plan is accompanied by a list of infrastructure priorities to support the introduction of residential development. In order to enhance sustainable infrastructure and deliver the infrastructure set out in NPs, a contribution is sought from the residential development using the Total Access Demand (TAD) methodology of £363,000. [Planning Officer comment: the infrastructure improvements to be secured through this development which meet the CIL Reg 122 tests are to be secured through the Section 106 Agreement and are set out in paragraph 3.3 and 8.30 of this report.]
Layout and Parking HGV tracking of the internal roundabout junction has been provided by the Applicant and shown to work appropriately. 176 car parking spaces are proposed for the food retail element. The WSCC Parking Standards suggests that a development of this scale makes provision for 140 spaces. The overprovision is considered to be appropriate to cater for any overspill that may occur from the other uses. The provision of 25 cycle stands is in accordance with WSCC guidance. The site layout and parking provision for the residential phase is to be considered at reserved matters but WSCC are satisfied that the parking demand for a development of 144 dwellings can be accommodated within the confines of the site. Consideration should also be given to internal cycle connectivity and ensuring the internal spine road is to an adoptable standard so that it is suitable as a public link from Manor Road to Drift Road.
6.13 WSCC - Infrastructure
The following infrastructure contributions are sought from the development; Primary Education £372,342 Libraries £41,430 Fire and Rescue £3,916 Total Access Demand (TAD) £363,000
6.14 CDC - Community Facilities
The Selsey Centre which is the nearest to the proposed development requires an extension with another meeting/community room, appropriate staging and changing facilities and further storage. Request a contribution of £253,296.
12 6.15 CDC - Sport and Leisure
There would be a requirement for £116,254 for sport and leisure, calculated using the Sport England Sports Facility Calculator. This money would be used to assist with the delivery of the Selsey Sports Dream football and cricket pavilion/clubhouse project which has been identified within the draft Selsey Neighbourhood Plan. There are no further Section 106 contributions for Leisure currently allocated to the Selsey Sports Dream Project.
6.16 CDC - Open Space
The masterplan shows a combined play and open space of 1.11 acres (0.449 ha) which exceeds the Supplementary Planning Guidance requirements and is well positioned within the development.
6.17 CDC - Coast and Land Drainage Engineer
The new scheme is a gravity system with restricted discharge and storage provided in an open pond. This approach is acceptable in principle. As part of the proposal the developer will be required to clear the existing ditch, the details of which can be agreed on site. Recommend conditions regarding approval of the details of the surface water drainage scheme which should follow building regs and SUDS manual. No dwelling to be occupied until surface water drainage serving that property is installed. Maintenance and management of the SUDs system to be submitted and approved before development commences.
6.18 CDC - Housing Enabling Officer
Original There is a very great need for affordable housing in Selsey so the full 40% quota is required. The affordable housing mix is acceptable. The private housing mix does not align directly with SHMA in respect of the number of 4 bedroom dwellings proposed (too many).
Amended I am satisfied that although the revised private mix is not exactly as the SHMA recommendations, it is acceptable in this case.
6.19 CDC - Economic Development Service
Support the application. Development will encourage residents to stay within the area for their shopping and petrol requirements. It is also likely to encourage people who live outside of the Manhood Peninsula to visit Selsey, improving the economy further. Selsey High Street vacancy rate is considerably lower than the national average but EDS recognises the need to both protect and promote the high street. To encourage the sustainability and growth of a wide variety of shops, we would expect the space within the proposed A1 site to be controlled by including conditions to limit the sale of comparative goods. Selsey unemployment rate is 8.7%, higher than the average for Chichester District, which is 6.5%. Introduction of a hotel and a supermarket will give local residents opportunity to work at the site, both during the initial stages of the development and once the site is built. Essential conditions are imposed to ensure 100% of the commercial space is built, by the time 50% of the residential development has been occupied. It will be important for the development,
13 as well as the town as a whole, to have the guarantee of employment opportunities locally, as soon as possible. New hotel accommodation is welcomed and will economically benefit the area. Staying visitors spend significantly more within a local economy than day visitors and help underpin the viability of associated businesses such as transport, entertainment, catering and retailing.
6.20 CDC - Archaeological Officer
Site of this size is bound to contain archaeological deposits. Condition should be imposed requiring an investigation before the commencement of any building works which shall include an initial trial investigation and for the preservation of significant deposits identified.
6.21 CDC - Environmental Strategy
Various comments about the need to ensure protected species which may or may not be present on the site are safeguarded. Confirmation of need for a mitigation payment to offset environmental impact on Pagham Harbour SPA.
6.22 CDC - Environmental Health Officer
Given size of site a comprehensive site investigation should be undertaken to confirm the ground conditions. This can be secured through the standard land contamination condition. An air quality assessment should be undertaken for the construction phase and this can again be secured by condition. Construction process should follow Code for Considerate Contractors. The petrol filling station will require a separate Environmental Permit issued by CDC.
6.23 61 Third Party Objections
Petition with 397 signatures opposed to supermarket and objecting on infrastructure grounds. Too many houses Asda will harm Selsey high street shops Existing infrastructure cannot cope will make it worse Loss of agricultural land Too much traffic on already congested roads, can't sustain any more New residents will be harmful to wildlife at Pagham Will ruin peaceful nature of Selsey Housing will not benefit local people Petrol station and Asda will add to HGV traffic on B2145 Does Selsey really need another supermarket
6.24 64 Third Party Support
Petition with 79 signatures supporting a new ASDA supermarket Village will retain shops who will be encouraged to shop locally Will create more employment and an increase in trade Will result in traffic decrease on B2145 Customers will come from surrounding area investing in and helping Selsey thrive Hotel will benefit local tourism and the existing high street shops and businesses There will be petrol available locally
14 6.25 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information
In addition to the Design and Access Statement, the agent has submitted a comprehensive suite of reports on the various issues. The proposed development is considered to meet the applicable threshold for Schedule 2 Development (category 10 (b) urban development projects greater than 0.5ha) within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and is therefore accompanied by an Environmental Statement. The supporting reports are available to read in detail on the Council's website and comprise:
The Environmental Statement and its Non-Technical Summary comprising: - Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment - Lighting Statement - Flood Risk and Drainage Assessment - Ground Conditions Assessment - Transportation Statement - Ecological Assessment - Noise Assessment Housing Statement Retail Statement Statement of Community Engagement Sustainability Statement
6.26 The applicant has worked closely with Selsey Town Council to develop proposals for a mixed use development which responds to the aspirations set out in the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. There has also been community involvement through 2 local exhibitions, regular updates through the local media and regular meetings and consultation with key stakeholders.
7.0 Planning Policy
The Development Plan
7.1 The Development Plan for Chichester District comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999 and all adopted neighbourhood plans. There is no adopted neighbourhood plan for Selsey but at the time of writing it is understood that submission of that plan to the Council is imminent whereupon it will undergo its 6 week consultation period. The Committee will be updated at the meeting regarding progress in terms of timetabling.
7.2 The principal planning policies relevant to the consideration of this application are as follows: Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999:
BE1 Settlement Policy Areas BE3 Archaeology BE11 New Development BE13 Town Cramming BE14 Wildlife Habitat, Trees, Hedges and Other Landscape Features BE16 Energy Conservation RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE7 Nature Conservation (Designated Areas)
15 TR6 Highway Safety H4 Size and Density of Dwellings H5 Open Space Requirements H6 Maintenance of Open Space S6 East Wittering, Midhurst, Petworth and Selsey Shopping Centres T1 Accommodation and Facilities
7.3 The Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications was submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination in May 2014. The emerging Local Plan is a material consideration and as it progresses through the Local Plan process towards adoption it will gain more weight for decision making purposes. Paragraph 216 of the NPPF is therefore relevant.
7.4 The hearings for the Local Plan Examination started on the 30 September 2014 and continued until December. During the public examination on the 8th October the Inspector indicated that she had not seen up to date evidence to justify the District Council's proposed housing figure of 410 homes per annum over the 15 year plan period. The Inspector invited the Council to initiate an audit of the evidence and to augment the evidence base where necessary. Evidence undertaken by the Council indicated that it was possible to increase the housing target by 25, to 435 per annum. This equated to 415 dwellings in total over the plan period. On this basis the Council considered it would be possible to increase the allocation within the plan period. In terms of Selsey there was no proposed increase in the overall housing numbers for the Plan period.
7.5 The Evidence Audit was approved for submission to the Planning Inspector for the Local Plan Examination by Council on the 24th November 2014. Proposed modifications to the Plan were approved by the Council for consultation on the 22nd December 2014. The consultation ran for six weeks from the 8th January until 19th February 2015. At the time of writing the representations arising from the consultation were being considered by the Planning Inspector who has confirmed there are no proposals to hold further hearings. Currently the estimated date for adoption of the Local Plan is Spring/Summer 2015.
Chichester Local Plan Key Policies 2014-2029 (with modifications)
Applicable policies from the submitted Chichester Local Plan include:
Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 3: The Economy and Employment Provision Policy 4: Housing Provision Policy 5: Parish Housing Sites 2012- 2029 Policy 6: Neighbourhood Development Plans Policy 7: Masterplanning Strategic Development Policy 8: Transport and Accessibility Policy 9: Development and Infrastructure Provision Policy 22: Integrated Coastal Zone Management for the Manhood Peninsula Policy 23: Selsey Strategic Development Policy 29: Settlement Hubs and Village Centres Policy 30: Built Tourist and Leisure Development Policy 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing
16 Policy 38: Local and Community Facilities Policy 39: Transport, Accessibility and Parking Policy 40: Sustainable Design and Construction Policy 42: Flood Risk Policy 48: Natural Environment Policy 49: Biodiversity Policy 51: Development and Disturbance of Birds in Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area Policy 52: Green Infrastructure Policy 54: Open Space, Sport and Recreation
National Policy and Guidance
7.6 Government planning policy now comprises the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 14 of which states: At the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both plan-making and decision-taking: For decision-taking this means unless material considerations indicate otherwise: - Approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and - Where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly or demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or specific policies in (the) Framework indicate development should be restricted.
7.7 Consideration should also be given to paragraphs 6-13 (Presumption in Favour of development); 17 (the Core Planning Principles); 23-24, 26-27 (Ensuring the vitality of town centres); 29-32, 34-37 and 39 (Sustainable Transport); 47-50 and 55 (Housing); 56-61 and 63-64 (Design); 69-70 and 73 (Healthy Communities); 93-101 (Climate Change and flood risk); 118-119 (Natural Environment); 183-185 (Neighbourhood Plans);188-195 (Pre-Application); 196-197 (Determining Applications); 203-206 (Conditions and Obligations) and Annex 1 (Implementation). National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) supplements and forms a companion guide to the NPPF.
7.8 The government's New Homes Bonus (NHB) which was set up in response to historically low levels of housebuilding, aims to reward local authorities who grant planning permissions for new housing. Through the NHB the government will match the additional council tax raised by each council for each new house built for each of the six years after that house is built. As a result, councils will receive an automatic, six-year, 100 per cent increase in the amount of revenue derived from each new house built in their area. It follows that by allowing more homes to be built in their area local councils will receive more money to pay for the increased services that will be required, to hold down council tax. The NHB is intended to be an incentive for local government and local people, to encourage rather than resist, new housing of types and in places that are sensitive to local concerns and with which local communities are, therefore, content. Section 143 of the Localism Act which amends S.70 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes certain financial considerations such as the NHB, material considerations in the determination of planning applications for new housing. The amount of weight to be attached to the NHB will
17 be at the discretion of the decision taker when carrying out the final balancing exercise along with the other material considerations relevant to that application.
Other Local Policy and Guidance
7.9 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance and Interim Statements are material to the determination of this planning application:
The Provision of Service Infrastructure Related to New Development in Chichester District (Parts 1 and 2) Interim Statement on Planning for Affordable Housing Interim Policy Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Special Protection Areas and Identified Compensatory Habitats
7.10 The aims and objectives of the Council's Sustainable Community Strategy are material to the determination of this planning application. These are:
A1 - A strong local economy where businesses can thrive and grow
A2 - Employees with good skills relevant to local employers, prepared for national and international competition and with well-paid and secure jobs
A3 - Vibrant and sustainable City and market towns, with a good range of business and retail types
B1 - Managing a changing environment
B2 - Greener living
B3 - Environmental Resources
C3 - A culturally enriched and empowered community
C6 - Health Protection
D1 - Increasing housing supply
D2 - Vibrant, safe and clean neighbourhoods
D3 - Housing fit for purpose
D4 - Understanding and meeting community needs
E1 - Traffic management in the district will improve so as to reduce congestion
E2 - There will be improved cycling networks and strong links to public transport to ensure that cycling is a viable alternative to using the car
E4 - People will have easier access to services at a local level
18 8.0 Planning Comments
8.1 The planning application comprises a residential-led mixed use proposal. It is submitted partly in outline (predominantly the residential element but also including the proposed hotel and multi-use clinic) and partly in full (the foodstore, associated petrol filling station and the two A3 restaurants). The subsequent structure of this report considers the main issues in relation to both the outline and full components which are described in section 3 above.
8.2 The main issues raised by the application are:
The principle of housing development in this location The significance of the Neighbourhood Plan The impact on the safety and function of the highway network The impact of the commercial development on Selsey town centre and issues of sustainability The impact of the development on the Pagham Harbour SPA Surface and foul water drainage Design, density and landscape impact
Assessment
Principle of housing development in this location
8.3 The required starting point for the Committee's consideration of this application is established in Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 which states that planning applications: 'should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise'. The development plan comprises the saved policies of the Chichester District Local Plan First Review 1999. The Local Plan only supports the principle of housing development taking place within Settlement Policy Areas through policies RE1, BE1 and H1. The site adjoins but is outside of the settlement boundary for Selsey so there is an automatic policy presumption against new housing. However, the current Local Plan is not up to date in terms of its housing policies because the District cannot demonstrate that it has a five year housing land supply (5YHLS) as it is required to do so by paragraph 49 of the NPPF (there remains a shortfall of approximately 442 dwellings which is equivalent to the Council having a 4.3 year supply). In the absence of a 5YHLS, the NPPF's central golden thread is that there should be a presumption in favour of allowing sustainable new development. This may include new housing and potentially significant new housing outside of established settlement boundaries.
8.4 The government's policy basis therefore starts with a presumption in favour of allowing the proposed development unless any adverse impacts of so doing would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. Policies from the extant Local Plan cannot be relied on unless they are consistent with the NPPF and in terms of policies RE1, BE1 and H1 they are not. NPPF paragraph 216 advises that the weight in terms of decision making that may be given to policies in the new Local Plan is also dependent on their degree of consistency with the NPPF, the stage of preparation of
19 the emerging plan and the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies.
8.5 The emerging Local Plan which will replace the saved policies in the 1999 Local Plan is at an advanced stage with the hearings process having been completed . Its policies therefore have weight commensurate with the advice in the NPPF. Policy 23 in the Chichester Local Plan Key Policies 2014-2029 (Selsey Strategic Development) is not subject to modifications. It envisages development at Selsey during the plan period comprising both housing (around 150 homes) as well as supporting community facilities and open space. Given the constraints of the existing settlement boundary this new development will need to take place on land outside of the settlement boundary within what is currently defined in policy terms as the Rural Area.
8.6 Going forward therefore, the principle of some new development outside of, but as an extension to the existing developed part of Selsey is considered to be both necessary and acceptable. Given the context of the Council's 5 YHLS and the government requirement in NPPF para 49 in this regard, there are not considered to be strong grounds to conclude that bringing forward development at this time is premature or would jeopardise the local development plan process.
The significance of the Neighbourhood Plan
8.7 Policy 23 of the emerging Local Plan makes it clear that the future growth of Selsey needs to be a collaborative process, with active stakeholder engagement and participation through the neighbourhood plan process. It also needs to be development that is masterplanned in accordance with Policy 7. The Selsey Neighbourhood Plan (SNP) at the time of writing this report is about to be submitted to the Council for the required 6 week consultation process under Regulation 16. The applicant has worked closely with the Town Council to prepare a plan which meets some of its future aspirations and the Committee will note that the Town Council supports the application subject to securing a number of infrastructure requirements regarding the components in the outline proposals and reducing the number of dwellings to 90.
8.8 The SNP has some weight as a material consideration insofar that the Final Submission document containing the aspirations for the local Community through the Local Plan period is now prepared and is about to be submitted to the Council. However, these aspirations have yet to be subject to the statutory consultation process. Following this the SNP will also then need to pass the examination and referendum stages prior to being made. At this stage the neighbourhood plan does not therefore carry the same weight as development plan policy and this status must temper the degree to which it can be relied on in the decision making process on this planning application in light of the advice in paragraph 216 of the NPPF.
8.9 The SNP is however a material consideration to be taken into account. It identifies two sites outside of the existing settlement boundary (Drift Road - the former Pye site to the east - and the current application site) as appropriate sites for new development. Collectively the two sites in the SNP which have been subject to local community consultation anticipate delivery of around 190 new homes through the Plan period. In terms of existing planning commitments there is an extant outline permission for 110 homes at Drift Field and 50 homes at Park Farm (the western most part of the current application site adjacent to the roundabout). The current
20 application for 144 dwellings would therefore include the 50 dwellings permitted at Park Farm rather than being additional to them. Drift Field (110) plus this application (144) would result in a total of 254 dwellings for Selsey. This is 64 more than the SNP anticipates and 104 more than the emerging Local Plan figure (150). The emerging Local Plan figure of 150 however is not expressed as a 'maximum' and in light of the 5 YHLS position and the presumption in favour of sustainable development in para 14 of the NPPF the Council would need to demonstrate significant and adverse impacts associated with the development that would outweigh the clear benefits of providing an additional 104 dwellings that would contribute towards addressing the current housing shortfall.
8.10 It is relevant to note that the Strategic Housing Land Supply Assessment (SHLAA) in May 2014 which formed part of the evidence base for the emerging Local Plan identified theoretical capacity for 637 homes at Selsey. The Local Plan figure for around 150 homes is therefore a conservative figure in comparison with this but reflects potential constraints associated with Selsey's location on the Peninsula. These constraints include the fact that large areas are at risk of coastal flooding, the potential environmental impact on Pagham Harbour and the highway impact on the B2145. The 3 sites assessed in the 2014 SHLAA totalling 637 homes comprise the current application site, the Drift Field Road site and land to the west of Park Farm/B2145. All 3 of these sites are in Flood Zone 1 and so are at the lowest risk of coastal flooding. The highway impact and the environmental impact on Pagham Harbour have been assessed in respect of the Drift Road (110 dwelling) and Park Farm (50 dwelling) sites and successfully addressed through a package of mitigation measures agreed with Natural England.
8.11 Policy ASP01 of the SNP allocates the application site for a mixed use development comprising;
Up to 90 homes A 27,000 sq ft. (2,508 sqm) Supermarket 60 bed hotel with associated food & beverage provision Health/Dental Clinic
The mix of uses in the SNP compares favourably with that proposed by the current planning application. The application proposes an additional 54 dwellings beyond the minimum requirement of the emerging Local Plan but again this must be considered in the context of the 5 YHLS position and the fact that the 150 allocation is not a 'ceiling' on development if is demonstrated that development with a higher number of dwellings is sustainable in other respects such as its highway impact and the environmental impact on Pagham Harbour SPA. Officers have concluded that in terms of the overall form of the development and mix of uses proposed, whilst the SNP is not yet made the proposed development aligns itself well with the community's aspirations. It is acknowledged that the total number of dwellings exceeds that envisaged by the SNP but this application should be judged on its individual merits and in light of the development management considerations discussed below.
The impact on the safety and function of the highway network
8.12 The comments of the County Council as local highway authority are set out in detail at paragraph 6.12 above and are therefore not repeated in detail in this section. The Committee will note however that no objection is raised to either the commercial or
21 residential components of the development. The consultation response considers access, traffic impact accessibility and highway improvements, layout and parking. In terms of the strategic road network (A27) no objection is raised by Highways England (para 6.6).
8.13 Significant attention has been paid to ensuring that the access to the foodstore, petrol station and restaurants from the existing roundabout at the junction of Manor Road/B2145 is fit for purpose in terms of its technical layout and from a safety perspective. This will result in a slight realignment/improvement of the roundabout to ensure that the correct geometry is achieved. In terms of traffic impact the Committee will note that the submitted traffic assessment (TA) anticipates circa 90 movements for the residential element during the peak network hours and that movements generated by the hotel and A3 use will occur primarily outside of network hours. The TA anticipates the foodstore would generate circa 315 movements in the peak hour and that this is a key component of the traffic assessment. The expectation is that the new foodstore will draw the majority of its' trade from the existing supermarkets located to the south of Chichester, approximately 8 miles from the site. This will reduce need for both new and existing residents to travel off the Peninsula for large food retail purchases. The consequence of this is to offset the impact generated by the residential aspect of the development. On this basis WSCC Highways consider that the proposed development will not have a severe cumulative impact, which is the required test as set out in paragraph 32 of the NPPF, on the operation of the local network in capacity terms and when considered cumulatively with the traffic flows associated with the Local Plan.
8.14 In terms of accessibility and highway improvements the Committee will note that the Town Council's support for the outline component of the application is conditional on securing a number of off-site highway improvements. WSCC's response is that where such off-site improvements are reasonable and justified in the context of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (CIL) to make the development acceptable in planning terms, these will be secured through the Section 106 agreement associated with any planning permission granted for the development. The package of measures which has been agreed are set out in para 3.3 and again in the section on the S.106 legal agreement below (para 8.30). This package does not include all those matters listed in Selsey Town Council's representations on the application and is necessarily restricted to those which are necessary and reasonably related to the development to make the application acceptable in light of the requirements of the CIL regulations. The parking provision both for the commercial proposals and the residential component are acceptable and accord with the WSCC Parking Calculator. The comments from the Parish Councils on the Peninsula with regard to concerns about the impact of traffic arising from the development are not considered to be substantiated on the basis of the available transport evidence and officers are of the opinion that on the basis of the comments received from WSCC and Highways England the development is acceptable on highway grounds.
The impact of the commercial development on Selsey town centre and issues of sustainability
8.15 The proposed commercial element of the development would be primarily delivered as part of the full application - foodstore, associated petrol filling station and 2 no. restaurants. The outline application proposes the 40 bed hotel and the health clinic. The balance of uses complies with aspirations set out in the SNP. The application
22 advises that the proposed foodstore is to be occupied by Asda. The store would have a net sales area of 1,394 sqm (1,858 sqm gross) and be approximately 85% larger than the existing Budgens store in the retail centre of Selsey. Its focus would be on the sale of convenience goods with some comparison goods sales (the applicants retail statement anticipates approximately 25% comparison goods compared with typically 50% for a larger Asda store). The store although on the edge of Selsey's existing Settlement Policy Boundary will only be a 5 minute walk from the retail centre (this was the Planning Inspectors observation in paragraph 15 of the Park Farm appeal decision) and is the preferred location for a new foodstore in the SNP. Were the SNP made (adopted) then the sequential test required by the NPPF for the out of centre foodstore would not be required. It is relevant to note that in the appeal decisions at Park Farm for 50 dwellings (that is the western part of the current application site) and the 100 dwelling scheme at Drift Road (east of the current application site) both Inspectors concluded that new housing development was not unsustainably located in relation to access to the main facilities in Selsey within the meaning of the NPPF. More widely in the context of 'sustainable' development and access to facilities, the Committee will note that at the recent appeal decision in respect of 160 dwellings at Clappers Lane in Bracklesham (EWB/14/00457/OUT, APP/L3815/A/14/2219554) the Inspector concluded that 'Trips beyond it [Bracklesham] to higher order services and facilities are only to be expected. Their inevitable existence does not necessarily demonstrate the appeal site to be in an unsustainable location. On the contrary, it could be as 'sustainable' as many other locations within, or on the edge of, this 'single large village'. Officers consider that a similar case to Bracklesham can be made for Selsey in that both are identified in the emerging Local Plan as 'settlement hubs'.
8.16 As the SNP is not yet a 'made' plan the applicant has carried out a sequential test to establish if there are other more sequentially preferable sites in the town centre or edge of centre that could meet the requirements of a foodstore of this size and which are available, suitable and deliverable. None of the sites which would potentially be of sufficient size to accommodate the store and the commercial components are achievable or deliverable. Your officers are satisfied that the retail assessment in respect of the potential availability of other alternative more centrally located sites has been carried out appropriately and therefore that the application site satisfies the sequential test.
8.17 The size of the foodstore falls below the NPPF requirement to carry out a formal assessment in terms of the likely impact of the development on the vitality and viability of Selsey's retail centre. The NPPF requires such an assessment to be undertaken for proposals of 2,500 sqm or more unless there is a locally set default threshold which in the case of Selsey there is not. The applicant has nevertheless carried out an assessment of 'impact' which has included a survey by an independent market research company to assess existing convenience shopping patterns in Selsey. The headline results of this survey revealed that the main food shop destinations for Selsey residents were to Tesco's and Sainsbury's, the average main food shopping time was 16-18 minutes each way. 60% of top up spend in the town goes to Selsey stores with existing Selsey foodstores retaining only 21-25% of the main food spend. The applicants figures reveal a background of substantial main food shopping leakage outside of Selsey to larger established foodstores on the edge of Chichester. The current proposals therefore seek to claw back this main food trade loss from the stores farther afield by keeping spending within Selsey. The Council's Economic Development Service (EDS) has assessed the application and
23 considered the applicants retail assessment. EDS comments are reported in some detail at paragraph 6.19 and the Committee will note that following analysis of the proposals for not just the foodstore but the other commercial elements the application is supported. EDS consider that the development will both support and improve the local economy in terms of increased local spend, more jobs and more visitors.
8.18 The 'package' of commercial elements are considered to be an important component to the success of this strategic application overall in terms of it meeting the community's aspirations enshrined in the SNP. A housing development alone or in isolation notwithstanding the Council's 5 YHLS situation would not be considered acceptable without at least some of the supporting commercial infrastructure. It is considered important therefore that through planning conditions and the mechanism of the Section 106 agreement key triggers will be required to ensure that insofar as is reasonably practicable and enforceable, the delivery of the commercial components is achieved. The applicant has confirmed to the Council that supermarket operator Asda has signed a 20 year lease to develop the foodstore subject to planning permission. Early delivery of the foodstore is paramount to the development insofar as the basis of the transport assessment and WSCC Highways acceptance of this assessment is that it will result in a reduction in vehicle movements on the B2145 (by reducing the current leakage of main food retailing from Selsey) and thereby offset some of the increase in vehicle movements associated with the proposed 144 dwellings. The Committee is therefore advised that a condition is proposed on this recommendation requiring that before occupation of the 51st dwelling subject of the permission (accepting that the applicant already benefits from an extant outline planning permission for 50 dwellings on the site) the foodstore shall be at practical completion.
8.19 In respect of the multi-use clinic, the restaurants and the hotel, the S.106 will require a marketing period to commence from the date of the permission to establish demand from potential commercial operators. For the multi-use clinic the anticipation is that if at the end of the marketing period a health care provider has been secured to provide the NHS medical services anticipated by the NHS PCT in its separate consultation response (requesting a contribution of £63,893), then that financial contribution will not be sought. If a health care provider is secured from the marketing period but that provider has no NHS component then the NHS PCT contribution will be required in addition to the new building. If at the end of the marketing period there has been no developer interest in delivering a health care building on the site then the NHS PCT contribution would be sought.
The impact of the development on the Pagham Harbour SPA
8.20 The application site lies approximately 650 metres west/south-west of Pagham Harbour SPA where the Council is under a legal duty to protect wildlife, and bird populations in particular, from harm. The Habitat Regulations require the Council to consider whether development may have a "likely significant effect" on the Harbour and whether an "Appropriate Assessment" may be required (Regulation 61).
8.21 The Interim Policy Statement on Development and Disturbance of Birds in Special Protection Areas and identified Compensatory Habitats (April 2014) provides an approach to assist the Council's consideration of whether planning applications may have a "likely significant effect" on SPA's. For Pagham Harbour SPA the Council has identified a 3.5km zone of influence. This zone of influence requires the Council
24 for developments of one net new dwelling or more (within this zone) to assess the likelihood of an in-combination significant effect, including in-combination with development in Arun District. Where such an effect is considered likely a package of avoidance measures will have to be agreed and secured by legal agreement. The application site falls well within the zone of influence and therefore mitigating the potential recreational disturbance impact from people walking to the Harbour is a key consideration. There has been a significant amount of discussion on this important issue throughout the application process involving the applicant, the Council's Environmental Strategy service, Natural England, the RSPB and Arun District Council to arrive at a coherent approach for mitigating the potential impacts of large scale new housing developments including this application on Pagham Harbour SPA.
8.22 As a result of the negotiations a 'package' of on-site and off-site mitigation measures are proposed and these are detailed in paragraph 6.7 above. In terms of the off-site measures the applicants have agreed to a financial contribution of approximately £800 per dwelling i.e. 144 x 800 = £115,200 (though this figure maybe reduced if a lower figure is subsequently agreed with Natural England). Such a sum will be used inter alia towards the wardening of the Harbour and includes provision for an 'in perpetuity' contribution to satisfy that requirement in the Habitat Regulations. The Committee will note that Natural England has no objection to the application on the basis that the Council secures the package of recreational mitigation measures through the S.106 agreement which it is proposed to do. On this basis the advice of Natural England is that an Appropriate Assessment is not required and officers are satisfied that whilst some impact from additional visitors to the SPA could be expected, the mitigation proposed will avoid a 'likely significant effect' and the requirements of the legislation have therefore been addressed.
Surface and foul water drainage
Surface Water 8.23 The site lies in flood zone 1 (sites with the lowest risk of fluvial and tidal flooding) and the Committee will note that the Environment Agency has raised no objection in this regard. In terms of surface water (SW) drainage for the full application (foodstore, filling station and restaurants) the proposal is for a gravity system with restricted discharge to the existing ditch system which will discharge to a storage area provided in an open swale/pond in the south east corner of the outline site. The Council's Drainage Officer has confirmed that this approach is acceptable in principle subject to control by condition and the Environment Agency has also raised no objection. For the residential part of the site covered by the outline application for housing the proposal is for the development to be drained by SUDs which the Council's Drainage Officer has confirmed is the required approach. The potential for infiltration drainage is preferred but if groundwater tests prove soakage to be inadequate the Drainage Officer has confirmed that attenuation with run-off restricted to no more than greenfield rates will be acceptable. A condition requiring the final details of the SUDs scheme is recommended in the event that planning permission is granted.
Foul Water 8.24 The foul water drainage proposals are to drain to the existing mains network. As part of Southern Water's consultation response the Council is advised that following a level 2 capacity check there is currently inadequate capacity in the local network to service the development and that additional off-site sewers or improvements to
25 sewers will be required to provide sufficient capacity. The need to provide new sewers or upgrades to existing off site sewers is not uncommon for large housing developments with the appropriate infrastructure secured through the separate legal mechanism of S.98 of the Water Industry Act 1991. The applicant has made a S.98 application to Southern Water to upsize/upgrade parts of the existing public sewer network at the East Beach Pumping Station and these works are currently being assessed in detail by Southern Water. A condition is recommended regarding approval of the detail of the drainage and off-site works including a timetable for implementation.
8.25 Officers are satisfied that on the basis of responses received from the Drainage Officer, Environment Agency and Southern Water the surface and foul water drainage arrangements are successfully addressed.
Design, density and landscape impact
8.26 In terms of the detailed commercial components of the full application, the proposed foodstore is set back from the B2145 with the intervening ground laid out to car parking. An approximately 20 m swathe of land to the north of the foodstore is shown laid to grass. The principle elevations of the building are to be principally clad in timber and facing brickwork under a standing seam metal roof with a maximum height of approximately 8 metres. The shop entrance lobby is slightly elevated above the ridge of the main building at about 8.4 m.
8.27 The restaurant building at the front of the site adopts a curved form which addresses the relationship with the roundabout in the same way that the curved terrace of dwellings at Hunnisett Close opposite does. The building is proposed in similar materials to the foodstore with an overall roof height of 6.5m and includes an outside seating area. The siting of both the foodstore and the restaurant are set well back from 'Four Ways', the detached dwelling adjacent to the north-west corner of the site and are separated from it by a proposed landscaping buffer. Officers are satisfied that the residential amenities of Four Ways are safeguarded by the proposals. The canopy of the petrol filling station at 5.2 m high adopts a similar curved profile to the restaurant building again addressing the roundabout. The fuel storage tanks are to be located below ground. The existing boundary hedgerow treatment is to be retained and reinforced with new planting and an increased buffer between the filling station and Manor Road. Additional tree planting is proposed within the car parking area to soften the appearance of this part of the site. The internal roundabout adjacent to the filling station will potentially provide for a vehicular link through to the outline application site.
8.28 In terms of the outline application proposals, the illustrative masterplan concept drawing shows housing development of up to 2.5 storeys, an west-east spine road through the site linking Manor Road with Drift Road, swales/balancing ponds to the north-west and south-east, a large central area of public space including playspace and additional open space in the south-east corner. The proposed hotel and multi- use clinic are shown adjacent to Manor Road. However, 'layout' along with 'appearance, scale and landscaping' are not matters for consideration under this outline component of the hybrid application. What the illustrative layout is able to demonstrate is that the proposed mix of housing including the required car parking spaces can be accommodated on the site. The overall density of development is approximately 20 dph and whilst this is below the recommended 35 dph in the emerging Local Plan, a lower density is considered acceptable in this edge of
26 settlement location and compares favourably with the 23 dph for the 110 dwellings allowed on appeal at the Drift Road site to the east.
8.29 The issue of landscape impact of developing the site was considered during consideration of both the Park Farm (50 dwelling) and Drift Road (110 dwelling) applications and subsequent appeals. In both instances the impact was considered acceptable. Park Lane to the north forms a definitive physical barrier containing future development to land to the south. To the north of this are the large packhouse buildings at Natures Way which by reason of their size have a significant impact. The Hankinson Duckett Landscape Capacity Study carried out for the Council in 2011 identified the application site as having only a 'negligible' contribution to the rurality of the surrounding landscape and being of only 'moderate' landscape sensitivity. The site lies within the Selsey-Pagham Strategic Gap (saved Local Plan policy RE6) but the issue of potential conflict with this policy in terms of the issue of coalescence has been assessed by the Planning Inspectors on both the previous Park Farm and Drift Road schemes and was not supported by them. No actual or perceived coalescence was considered to be a consequence of either scheme. Your officers are therefore satisfied that on the basis of the foregoing the landscape impact is acceptable.
Significant Conditions
8.30 In order to control the impact of the development a detailed schedule of planning conditions are proposed. Key conditions proposed include a restriction preventing occupation of the 51st dwelling on the site unless and until the foodstore is brought into use, a restriction on the amount of comparison goods which can be sold from the foodstore, a condition to ensure that the width and alignment of the east-west road linking Drift Road with Manor Road is appropriate to carry through traffic, a construction management plan, lighting in the car park, opening hours for the foodstore to the public restricted to 7am to 11pm, surface and foul water drainage.
Section 106 Agreement
8.31 At the time of writing this report work was continuing on preparation of the S.106 agreement and the Committee will be updated if necessary with progress on this before the meeting.
8.32 The following heads of terms will be secured;
58 affordable dwellings with the mix as set out in paragraph 3.1 Primary Education £372,342 Libraries £41,430 Fire and Rescue £3,916 Community Facilities £253,296 Sport and Leisure £116,254 Sussex Police £31,521 NHS PCT £63,893 (subject to the caveats in paragraph 8.19)
Pagham Harbour recreational mitigation package comprising a contribution of £800 per dwelling (or such lesser figure that may subsequently be agreed with Natural England) towards the following off site measures;
27 Off site - provision of a part-time, all year round warden post (to be provided in perpetuity and in place prior to first occupation of homes) - delivery of access management, education and interpretation - signage - monitoring
In addition the following on-site measures are to be secured;
On site - a 1 km dog walking route around the site boundary - an off- lead dog exercise area - educational packs for new residents.
WSCC Highways off-site mitigation in part delivered through Total Access Demand (TAD) payment of £363,000 - widening of the Ferry Bends on the B2145 to facilitate two way movements by large vehicles, given the increase in HGV movements associated with servicing the new foodstore - 3 x new bus stop laybys; 1 on the B2145 at the site, 1 adjacent to Farringdon Barn and 1 at Coles Farm - a new toucan crossing on Manor Road to provide cycle access to both the food store and residential phases of development - a new cycle route north from the Manor Road/Chichester Road roundabout adjacent to the B2145 to connect into the wider cycle network
Foodstore to be at practical completion before occupation of 51st dwelling Marketing exercise for commercial elements SUD's management and maintenance Open space areas and equipped play area - provision, management and maintenance
Conclusion
8.33 Officers consider that this hybrid planning application comprises a potentially significant investment in the future development of Selsey delivering much needed affordable housing together with a mix of commercial uses which have stemmed from discussions with the Town Council. The site is now a preferred site for mixed use development in the Selsey Neighbourhood Plan which is about to be submitted to the Council. The proposals represent a net increase on this site of 94 dwellings over the extant outline planning permission for 50 dwellings. In the context of the Council's 5YHLS shortfall and the now out of date housing policies in the Development Plan, paragraph 49 of the NPPF - the presumption in favour of sustainable development - is engaged and the application cannot be considered as being premature. The site is considered to be sustainably located in relation to Selsey's existing facilities, a fact borne out by successive Planning Inspectors in the 2 appeals at Park Farm and Drift Road further to the east. Key considerations regarding traffic impact and impact on the protected status of Pagham Harbour SPA have been assessed in detail by the respective consultees and are capable of being addressed by appropriate conditions and through the S.106 agreement. The application has attracted a high level of third party representation both in support and objection and officers recognize that it raises some significant issues. Officers in carrying out the planning balance and factoring in the comments of third parties, the
28 Town Council other Manhood Parish Council's and consultees have concluded that the development is acceptable and is recommended for permission subject to the signing of the S.106 agreement and expiration of the publicity period for the Environmental Statement which is 30th April.
Human Rights
8.34 In reaching this conclusion the Human Rights of the applicants and nearby occupiers have been taken into account when reaching this recommendation and it is concluded that the recommendation to permit is justified and proportionate.
Recommendation
8.33 The Environmental Statement publicity for this application expires the day after the Committee meeting i.e. on 30th April. The Committee are advised that officers would be minded to permit this application (subject to any further representations being received) and subject to a section 106 agreement as detailed in the above report. It is on this basis and given the constraint of the additional one days publicity, that the formal recommendation on the application is to delegate to officers.
DELEGATE TO OFFICERS
RECOMMENDATION DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT
1 U93135 - Time Limit - Full Permission 2 U93136 - Time Limit - Outline Permission 3 U93137 - Time Limit - Reserved Matters 4 U93138 - Approved Plans 5 U93220 - Materials/Finishes Site A 6 U93140 - Full Application - Provide Access 7 U93141 - Outline Application - Access 8 U93142 - Car Parking - Full Application 9 U93143 - Cycle Parking - Full Application 10 U93144 - Construction Management Plan Site A 11 U93221 - Construction Management Site B 12 U93145 - Travel Plan 13 U93146 - Foodstore Use Only 14 U93147 - Opening of Foodstore 15 U93149 - Comparison Goods Restriction 16 U93150 - Internal Link Road 17 U93154 - Car Park Management Scheme 18 U93163 - Landscaping Scheme - Full Application 19 K02G Landscaping 20 U93165 - Foodstore Opening Hours 21 U93174 - Lighting Scheme Foodstore Car Park 22 U93179 - Acoustic Treatment of Service Yard 23 U93180 - Surface Water Scheme 24 U93181 - Management of SUDs system 25 U93182 - Access to Watercourse 26 U93183 - Land Contamination
29 27 U93184 - Construction Phase - Air Pollution 28 U93205 - Surface and Foul Water Drainage 29 U93185 - D1 Building - Use Restriction 30 U93187 - Hotel - Use Restriction 31 U93189 - Restaurant Building - Use Restriction 32 U93204 - Public Art 33 U93222 - Archaeology 34 U93223 - Sustainable Development 35 W04F Need for separate Advertisement Consent 36 W36H Wildlife 37 U93210 - Environmental Permit
INFORMATIVES
1 U93208 - Informative - Positive/Proactive 2 U93212 - Informative - Southern Water 3 U93213 - Informative - Public Sewer 4 U93214 - Informative - S.278 Agreement 5 U93215 - Informative - Temporary Construction
For further information on this application please contact Jeremy Bushell on 01243 534734
30