CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY – PLANNING COMMITTEE A meeting of the Conservancy’s Planning Committee will be held at 10.30am on Monday 07 June 2021 at Eames Farm, Thorney Island. Richard Craven Director & Harbour Master For questions regarding this agenda please ask for Rosie Chase – email: [email protected] AGENDA 1. WELCOME AND APOLOGIES 2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members and officers are reminded to make declarations of pecuniary or personal interests they may have in relation to items on the agenda and to make any declarations at any stage during the meeting if it then becomes apparent that this may be required when a particular item or issue is considered. 3. MINUTES Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 12 April 2021 (page 1) 4. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 4a. Paynes Boatyard Thornham Lane Southbourne PO10 8DD (page 9) 4b. Land at Apuldram House, Dell Quay Road, Dell Quay, Appledram, Chichester, West Sussex (page 16) 4c. Spinney Cottage Spinney Lane Itchenor PO20 7DJ (page 28) 5. PP19 HOUSEBOATS CONSULTATION To consider the report of the AONB Manager (page 37) 6. BEAUTY STILL BETRAYED: THE STATE OF OUR AONBS IN 2021 To consider the report of the AONB Manager (page 41) 7. TERMS OF REFERENCE To consider the report of the AONB Manager (page 60) Chichester Harbour Conservancy 01243 512301 The Harbour Office, Itchenor, Chichester, [email protected] West Sussex PO20 7AW www.conservancy.co.uk 8. CASE UPDATES To provide any verbal updates for Members on any cases currently being considered by the Local Planning Authorities. 9. TABLE OF DELEGATED ACTIONS To consider the report from the Principal Planning Officers (page 62) 10. DATE OF NEXT MEETING Monday 12 July 2021 at Eames Farm from 10.30am _________________________________________________________________ Planning Committee members: Heather Baker, Ann Briggs, John Goodspeed, Keith Martin, Pieter Montyn, Adrian Moss, Alison Wakelin. Two positions vacant. Chichester Harbour Conservancy 01243 512301 The Harbour Office, Itchenor, Chichester, [email protected] West Sussex PO20 7AW www.conservancy.co.uk Agenda Item 3 CHICHESTER HARBOUR CONSERVANCY Planning Committee Minutes of the meeting held on Monday 12 April from 10.30am held via Zoom. Present Keith Martin (Chairman) Ken Smith Heather Baker Adrian Moss Chris Emery Alison Wakelin Pieter Montyn John Goodspeed Officers Richard Austin Steve Lawrence David Rothery Rosie Chase In attendance Rosy Raines Tim Wild Paul White 1.0 WELCOME AND APOLOGIES 1.1 Apologies for absence were received from Ann Briggs. Rosy Raines was introduced to the meeting as the potential successor to Ken Smith once he stands down from the Conservancy at the May local elections. 1.2 The Chairman and Committee thanked Councillor Smith for his service. 1.3 The development application for Burnes Shipyard was moved up the agenda to allow representations to be made more efficiently. 2.0 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST 2.1 Adrian Moss declared an interest in the Burnes Shipyard Application as he has been in discussion with the developers throughout the proposals. The interest was not considered prejudicial. 2.2 Pieter Montyn declared a personal interest (at the time the application was discussed) in respect of the proposals for Harbour View, Itchenor. 3.0 MINUTES 3.1 The minutes of the meeting held on Monday 1 March 2021 were agreed as a true record of the meeting and were agreed by the Committee. 3.2 A member asked for additional information about local authorities and how they report the Conservancy’s feedback to their respective planning committees. The member for Chichester District Council said he had asked for an update but had not received any further information. This action is carried over to the next meeting as a matter arising. 4.0 BRIEFING NOTE 4.1 The Principal Planning Officer (David Rothery) presented his briefing note to members in respect of SB/21/00359/EIA - Former Gosden Green Nursery, 112 Main Road, Southbourne, West Sussex. 4.2 A member said that the date was missed due to an error made by the Local Planning Authority and that as the Conservancy did not consider an environmental impact 1 assessment was needed but the LPA did, this error was not as serious as it could have been. 4.3 A member observed that the initial timeline set meant that the Conservancy’s officers were highly unlikely to be able to have met this deadline anyway. They went on to say that it brought to the fore, how many applications and how much pressure the Principal Planning Officers were under at this time. 4.4 The Principal DR said that he was around 16-20 cases behind the scheduled response rate, most of which were small cases but still needed consideration. He went on to say that the majority of responses are in the system before they are considered. At the current time, 3 cases have been determined before the Conservancy’s feedback was submitted. SL said that there is an exceptional number of cases to consider and both officers have been working overtime. 4.5 It was agreed that the Planning Committee would make the Conservancy and Advisory Committees aware of the pressure that the Planning Officers are under, that working overtime is not sustainable and more resources are required. The AONB Manager said that it was important that the Conservancy had this discussion. 5.0 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS Burnes Shipyard, Westbrook Field, Windward Road, Bosham, West Sussex 5.1 The Principal Planning Officer (DR) presented his report to members which was in respect of Burnes Shipyard. The proposal is for the redevelopment comprising the erection of 3x dwellings with access, parking, landscaping, and associated works following demolition of existing shipyard buildings and structures (Use Class B2). 5.2 He said that the properties were of a bespoke design and that flooding issues on the site had been considered. The PPO said he felt the proposed designs did not meet the Conservancy’s standard for sympathetic, traditional design. He recommended that the Planning Committee object. 5.3 Representations were made from Paul White and Tom Wild, speaking in support of the proposal. Paul White from Smith Simmons spoke to the issues around no boatwork since 1993, the loss of employment, and sewerage issues. Tom Wild spoke to the architectural issues outlined in the officer’s report. 5.4 Two members said they were sympathetic with the developers and preferred the proposed development rather than the existing disused shipyard. 5.5 Another member said he was satisfied that modern technology was required to keep the ridge height down and that was why it was being employed, and he had checked that the relevant stakeholders were satisfied and that there was head room for wastewater at Harts Farm. 5.6 Members agreed that the site would not be viable as a shipyard any longer. A member said that a change of use to residential was probably required but the Conservancy looks to conserve scenic beauty and the iconic view over the water 2 towards Bosham would be altered by this particular development. They went on to say that the bulk of the development would ideally be reduced. 5.7 A member asked what level of insulation and BREEAM was proposed and asked whether the latest in all renewable and energy conserving would be used. They made the point that if the development was not adding to the scenic beauty of the area, then they should be at least sustainable. The architect said that the design allows for high levels of insulation and air tightness. 5.8 A member said he felt there would be limited impact on any wildlife. 5.9 The AONB Manager said that he felt that the marketing requirements of PP02 had not been met and that the developers could have considered more carefully that the site was unviable for boat building and in his opinion, he felt that due to climate change the site would be unsuitable for houses. 5.10 Members voted upon the officer’s recommendation, 5 were in favour of supporting the recommendation, 3 were against. Recommendation The Planning Committee resolved to raise an objection to the proposed development. The refusal overview is as follows. The proposal would fail to preserve and enhance the character and visual appearance of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in this location by the imposition of buildings with a design and scale that are not reflective of the context of this edge of village location bordering the Conservation Area and with clear views from the parish church which forms a characteristic vista associated with the village of Bosham. The proposal is therefore not compliant with AONB Planning Principle PP01: Chichester Harbour as a Protected Area. The proposal for this industrial site would remove the prospect for replacement marine engineering, associated marine enterprise, or new industrial employment uses from the site that benefits from a coastal shoreline boundary. This is contrary to AONB Planning Principle PP02: Safeguarding Marine Enterprise. The loss of this site from employment use to residential housing would harm the economic opportunity of the site and area in general. The following planning issues impacting on the AONB are considered to justify an objection to the proposal (where non-compliant with a Planning Principle this is listed in brackets): - 1. Proposal fails to preserve and enhance the visual landscape character of the AONB (PP01) 2. Visual impact on a strategic landscape vista of Bosham Church and Conservation Area (PP01) 3. Loss of employment generating site to the economy of Bosham and surroundings (PP02) 3 4. Combination of buildings creating a street scene of excessive building bulk and profile (PP03) 5.