Parish: Ward: Selsey North

SY/15/00490/FUL

Proposal Erection of 110 residential dwellings with associated access, parking, landscaping, open space and works.

Site Land North West of Park Road Selsey

Map Ref (E) 486578 (N) 94042

Applicant Mr Robert Collett

RECOMMENDATION TO DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

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 1.0 Reason for Committee Referral

Parish Objection - Officer recommends Permit

2.0 The Site and Surroundings

2.1 The application site lies on the north eastern edge of Selsey approximately 1km (1.8 km walking distance) from the town centre. It comprises a total area of 6.6 hectares. It is enclosed for the greater part on 3 sides by residential development with mature, high hedging to all boundaries (approx. 5-6 metres high). The site is generally flat and level and is presently laid to rough pasture being in part sub- divided into horse paddocks. Park Lane defines the north site boundary and is an unmade single width access road which links the coast to the east of the site all the way back west to the B2145. The west site boundary is defined by Manor Lane, an unmade single width access track/road which is a public footpath. The south boundary is formed by Drift Road. Immediately west of Manor Lane is arable farmland, part of a larger parcel of land at Park Farm which benefits from a Committee resolution to permit a hybrid outline application for inter alia 139 dwellings and an ASDA supermarket subject to completion of a S.106 agreement which is underway. The rear garden boundaries of those dwellings fronting Park Road form the site boundary to the east.

2.2 The character of the surrounding area to the south and east is residential with predominantly bungalows or chalet bungalows (1960/70's) to the south. The north boundary of the site at its eastern end has residential development along approximately a third of its length and there are a cluster of farm buildings at Park Farm adjacent to the north-west corner at the junction of Manor Lane with Park Lane.

2.3 The site is located within the Environment Agency's Flood Zone 1.

3.0 The Proposal

3.1 The planning application is submitted in full. The site already benefits from an extant outline planning permission granted in November 2014 for 110 dwellings. That permission established both the principle of a new housing development of that size in this location and specifically permitted details of the 'access' to the site and the site 'layout'. Matters relating to the 'appearance', 'scale' and 'landscaping' of the proposed development were reserved for a later application/s.

3.2 The current proposal is again to erect 110 dwellings, 44 of which will be affordable units (40%). The application is submitted in full rather than as a reserved matters application to the extant outline permission because the applicant has proposed a variation to the previously agreed layout with changed dwelling types. The proposed dwellings comprise 2, 3 and 4 bed properties with a mix of houses, flats/maisonettes and bungalows. The application advises that the houses will be a maximum 2 storeys high whereas the outline permission permitted up to 2.5 storeys high. They will be constructed in a mix of red and buff brick and 3 different roof tiles. The applicant advises that the dwellings will be constructed to Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 adopting inter alia a fabric first approach i.e. minimising energy use through enhanced insulation. The approved modifications to Policy 40 in the new Local Plan have deleted the specific reference to achieving the Code for Sustainable Homes in favour of an approach which achieves a similar sustainable development approach through the building regulations requirements. The scheme has also been designed to follow the Building for Life 12 criteria to ensure well-designed homes and neighbourhoods.

The proposed dwelling mix is as follows;

Affordable- 44 units 6 x 1 bed (4x1b maisonette, 2x2b maisonette) 16 x 2 bed (10x2b houses, 4x2b maisonette, 2x2b bungalows) 15 x 3 bed (all houses) 7 x 4 bed (all houses)

Tenure - 13 x shared ownership, 31 x rent

Market - 66 units 23 x 2 bed (15x2b houses, 8x2b bungalows) 33 x 3 bed (25x3b houses, 8x3b bungalows) 10 x 4 bed (all houses)

3.3 The proposed development has a single point of vehicular access approximately mid-way along the south boundary of the site with Drift Road. There are 4 points of access for pedestrians and/or cyclists from the site onto Drift Road and an access at the junction of Manor Lane with Park Lane - the latter also functioning as an emergency access for vehicles. The east side of the site comprises an ecological enhancement area (SANGS) of approximately 1.45 hectares. This is provided as part of the applicant's package of mitigation measures to offset potential recreational disturbance issues at the Pagham Harbour SPA. A landscaped community dog-walking track approximately 900 metres long around and within the site perimeter comprising approximately 1.21 ha of land forms an additional part of this recreational mitigation package. The resultant net developable area of the site essentially comprises a perimeter block development arranged in 4 quadrants with most dwellings fronting onto the internal road layout. There is a centralised area of formal public open space which will include an equipped toddlers play area. The density of the developed part of the site including the formal open space area is approximately 28 dph. The development will provide a total of 289 car parking spaces of which 160 will be allocated to the private housing (average 2.4 spaces per dwelling) and 84 to the affordable housing (average 1.9 spaces per dwelling). A total of 45 unallocated spaces will be provided which includes visitor spaces.

4.0 History

04/04115/FUL PER Timber pavilion, 2 no. junior football pitches and parking.

08/04072/OUT REF Outline application with all matters reserved except for means of access to the development to provide up to 34,790 square metres external area of built floorspace (in total) for: Class B1 (a-c)(employment), C2 (100-bed nursing home), C3 (370 dwellings indicative), D2 (leisure), A1 (retail), D1 (clinic/healthcare) as alternative to A1 retail. Such development to include: Highways and public transport facilities, pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular ways, vehicle parking, layout open space (LEAP and formal open space), landscaping, ground works, provision and/or upgrade of services and related media and apparatus, miscellaneous ancillary and associated engineering and other operations. (If care home provided, the residential development is to be 335 units (indicative).

12/03246/EIA EIANR 150 dwellings

13/01115/FUL REF Residential development for 100 dwellings, new vehicular access off Drift Road, open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure

14/02418/OUT PER106 Outline application for residential development for 110 dwellings, and vehicular access off Drift Road.

09/00078/REF APPWDN Outline application with all matters reserved except for means of access to the development to provide up to 34,790 square metres external area of built floorspace (in total) for: Class B1 (a- c)(employment), C2 (100-bed nursing home), C3 (370 dwellings indicative), D2 (leisure), A1 (retail), D1 (clinic/healthcare) as alternative to A1 retail. Such development to include: Highways and public transport facilities, pedestrian, cyclist and vehicular ways, vehicle parking, layout open space (LEAP and formal open space), landscaping, ground works, provision and/or upgrade of services and related media and apparatus, miscellaneous ancillary and associated engineering and other operations. (If care home provided, the residential development is to be 335 units (indicative).

13/00064/REF DISMIS Residential development for 100 dwellings, new vehicular access off Drift Road, open space, landscaping and associated infrastructure

5.0 Constraints

Listed Building NO Conservation Area NO Rural Area NO AONB NO Strategic Gap YES Tree Preservation Order NO South Downs National Park NO EA Flood Zone FZ1 - Flood Zone 2 NO - Flood Zone 3 NO Historic Parks and Gardens NO

6.0 Representations and Consultations

6.1 Selsey Town Council

Selsey Town Council OBJECTS to this application on the grounds that the design of the proposed dwellings is of poor quality and does not reflect the identity or uniqueness of the surrounding area (facing open countryside, Pullman carriages and one off properties on Park Road) contrary to section 7, paragraphs 58 and 64 of the NPPF; the design of the properties mean they are not tenure blind and social and affordable housing is clearly identifiable, failing to secure a mixed and inclusive community - contrary to Section 7, paragraph 57 of the NPPF; the proposed properties facing Drift Road are shown as 2 storey thus overlooking the bungalows in Drift Road and so will be out of keeping with the existing street scene; the access to the site should not use Mountwood Road/Manor Lane or Manor Road/Beach Road as the prescribed access to the site from the B2145 - an alternative route to the site must to be found before development in order to ease construction traffic and ongoing residential access; Section 11 Construction Traffic of the Construction Management Plan needs a reference to no entry to the site via Park Lane

6.2 Hunston Parish Council

Hunston Parish Council objects to the application on the grounds previously stated as it does not feel that these have been adequately addressed. Notwithstanding this, should the application be permitted the Parish Council requests that funding is made available to Hunston Parish Council as a contribution towards traffic calming measures due to the increase in vehicle movements that will result.

Previous comments: - 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 severe'. The Parish Council believes that the introduction of a further 110 dwelling alongside the application for 159 dwellings, 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 underestimate 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. - 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. - The cumulative effect of this development alongside an additional proposal in Selsey from the point of increased traffic congestion would be detrimental to the quality of life for residents along the B2145 and would have a detrimental impact on the tourism economy on the Peninsula.

6.3 Donnington Parish Council Objects on 4 distinct grounds:

Severe Traffic Impact

Primary objection is due to the impact the development will have on the already critical traffic situation in our Parish. Donnington includes the A286/B2201 Selsey Tram junction and the Stockbridge Road (A286) approach to the Stockbridge roundabout of the A27. Both already suffer extreme congestion 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 bottleneck 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 Plan[4].

Air Quality

The continuous volume of traffic also severely affects air quality and the A286/A27 roundabout junction has already been declared by Council for failure of the Government's air quality standard for nitrogen dioxide. 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 Peninsular and the jobs that come up are typically low paid and often seasonal. If successive Transport Assessments of the chances of finding work on the peninsula were correct, nearly half of the developments 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 a 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 be 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 hotspot 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 an 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 overcrowded; it will languish the opposite side of a traffic bottleneck from the residents 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.

6.4 Environment Agency

No objection.

6.5 Southern Water Services

Following initial investigations there is currently inadequate capacity in the system to serve the development. The legal mechanism through which to provide the infrastructure upgrade is via S.98 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Request informative to this effect and a condition requiring details of the proposed means of foul and surface water drainage to be approved.

6.6 Highways

Confirm that Highways England's view on this application has not changed - No objection.

6.7 Natural England

On- site mitigation measures

Natural England supports the provision of the following on-site recreational space integral to the proposed development: - On site dog walking route - On-site dog off lead exercise area - Home information pack for new residents

These measures should be provided in perpetuity and be established prior to first occupation of any dwellings. However, additional off-site measures are necessary to mitigate impacts on Pagham Harbour SPA. Off- site mitigation measures

Agreement has been reached between CDC, Arun District Council and the RSPB, to implement a strategic approach to deliver in perpetuity wardening and access management provision as part of the mitigation package for the Park Farm application. The following measures need to be delivered as part of the strategic approach to enable NE to be able to conclude no likely significant effect on Pagham Harbour SPA from recreational disturbance: - 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

6.8 Sussex NHS Property Services

A contribution of £48,644 is sought towards the provision/enhancement of local healthcare services in Selsey generated by the development. (Planning Officer comment: this contribution is rolled forward from the extant outline planning permission issued in November 2014)

6.9 Sussex Police

Very pleased to note that the scheme has responded to comments made on the original outline proposal on design and layout. Development has outward facing dwellings creating good active frontage with streets and public areas including the open space area being overlooked. Various recommendations made regarding the height and form of boundary fencing for security and lighting around car parking areas and communal areas.

6.10 WSCC - Infrastructure

The following contributions are requested towards the provision of infrastructure improvements directly related to and necessary for the proposed development:

Education - Primary £214,000 Libraries - £22,387 Fire and Rescue Service £2,031 plus 4 hydrants TAD - £269,145

6.11 WSCC - Highways

No objection. With regard to the highway impact, the proposed development does not materially alter from the permission granted under 14/02418/OUT. Access matters remain consistent, as does the impact on the local road network and the layout of the proposed adoptable areas. No objection is raised to the proposal subject to the replication of the conditions secured through 14/02418 and a Section 106 Agreement. A Construction Management Plan has been submitted alongside the application. A route to the site via Beech Road and Drift Road has been proposed. Mountwood Road shall not be used for construction delivery; directional signage should be erected throughout the construction period. Recommend that the previous condition regarding Travel Plan is retained requiring a document to be submitted and agreed prior to first occupation.

The requested TAD contribution replicates what is written in the S.106 agreement on the outline permission and will contribute to all or some of the following schemes:

- Scheme of highway works to enable the widening of the B2145 at Ferry Bend - Provision of bus lay-bys or pull off points along the B2145 between Manor Roundabout and the A27 - An off-road cycle/pedestrian route adjacent to the B2145 from Manor Roundabout to Ferry Bend - A signed on road cycle route from the new development to the Town Centre - Public realm improvements within Selsey High Street - Pedestrian crossing facilities across Chichester Road in the vicinity of the Police Station - Pedestrian crossing facility at Beach Road to Orchard Parade - Pedestrian crossing facility across the High Street and Malthouse Road - Traffic calming measures along Hillfield Road - A vehicular access point at the western end of Drift Road to provide access through to Manor Road - Other highway improvements as identified in the Selsey Neighbourhood Plan 2014

6.12 CDC - Housing Enabling Officer

Selsey has the second highest housing need of any of the District's parishes and the council requires the full 40% quota of affordable housing. This, and also the market housing, should be in line with the recommendations of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2012 (SHMA). Both the affordable and market mix are acceptable. The pepper-potting of affordable units on the substitute layout plan is satisfactory.

6.13 CDC - Community Facilities

A contribution of £193,490 is sought towards community facilities in Selsey (£1,759 x 110 dwelings). The contribution is towards a proposed 200 sqm extension to the Selsey Centre to provide an additional meeting/community room, the total project costs of which are £350,000 - £450,000.

6.14 CDC - Open Space

No objection to development on the basis of the play space (400 sqm) being secured.

6.15 CDC - Sport and Leisure

The contribution required for sport and leisure is £89,605. 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. 6.16 CDC - Archaeological Officer

The likely archaeological potential justifies investigation of the site by trial trenching prior to it being developed. A condition is recommended to ensure this. (Planning Officer comment: these comments are rolled forward from the extant outline planning permission issued in November 2014)

6.17 CDC - Coast and Land Drainage Engineer

The drainage system has been designed so that the critical storm is stored within the permeable paving and basin, with excess capacity. The basin is lined with clay to prevent loss of storage through high groundwater levels. Recommends cross section of the basin and trench showing all levels including the ground water levels recorded in the worst case. Conditions recommended to secure the detailed design of the surface water drainage scheme prior to commencement.

6.18 CDC - Environmental Strategy

The reptile mitigation proposals for the site are acceptable and can be conditioned. In terms of the recreational pressure disturbance issue at Pagham Harbour SPA the situation has moved on since the approval of the outline planning permission. The previously agreed £48,000 contribution to offset the impact is now to be superseded by a higher contribution towards a wardening effort within the SPA as part of a project jointly funded with Arun District Council. The contribution is to be based on a cost per dwelling tariff including the in perpetuity cost and is currently being finalised.

6.19 CDC - Conservation and Design Manager

The layout seems roughly in accordance with that of the Outline application, and in principle is generally acceptable. Various comments/suggestions made with regard to the design and need for more variety in the dwellings. Suggest that a character area approach be adopted. The use of boarding should be avoided. Based on the proposed dwelling mix the value of the public art to be provided is £39,631 based on the Public Art Strategy Tariff for 2015-16.

6.20 CDC - Environmental Health

Council's standard land contamination and air quality assessment conditions recommended. Environmental impacts during construction phase should be managed by imposition of conditions to protect neighbouring properties. (Planning Officer comment: these comments are rolled forward from the extant outline planning permission issued in November 2014)

6.21 7 Third Party Objections

Development is not well integrated Two storey dwellings will overlook bungalows in Drift Road No job opportunities Primary school is full Town facilities cannot cope with increased number of residents B2145 cannot cope with extra traffic Noise and pollution Effect on wildlife Drainage is a problem Building on agricultural land Harmful to residential amenity

6.22 Applicant/Agent's Supporting Information

In addition to the Planning, Design and Access Statement the applicant has submitted a comprehensive suite of accompanying reports which can be read in detail on the Council's website. The reports cover the following matters: Drainage Provision and Flood Risk Assessment; Transport Assessment; Residential Travel Plan; Transport Assessment; Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; Landscape Specification; Landscape Management and Maintenance Plan; New Home Information Pack; Ecology Report; Ecological Enhancement and Management Scheme; Building for Life 12 Assessment; Arboricultural Impact Assessment; Reptile Mitigation Strategy; Avoidance of Impacts on Pagham Harbour SPA/Ramsar site; Sustainability Statement; Estate Management Plan; Construction Management Plan; Archaeological Written Scheme of Investigation; Stage 1 Road Safety Audits and Designers Response.

7.0 Planning Policy

The Development Plan

7.1 At the time of preparing this report 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 at this time.

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 C12 Coastal Path RE1 Rural Area Generally RE6 Strategic Gaps RE7 Nature Conservation (Designated Areas) TR6 Highway Safety H4 Size and Density of Dwellings H5 Open Space Requirements H6 Maintenance of Open Space

7.3 The Council has prepared a new Local Plan covering Chichester District excluding the South Downs National Park. The main plan document, Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029, was submitted for examination in May 2014. A number of examination hearings were held during the autumn of 2014, following which the Council undertook public consultation on Proposed Modifications to the Plan in January/February 2015. The Council has now received the Local Plan inspector's final report which was published in May 2015. The inspector concludes that, subject to a number of main modifications, the submitted Plan satisfies the legal requirements in the 2004 Act and meets the criteria for soundness set out in the NPPF. It should be noted that all of the inspector's recommended modifications were included in the public consultation undertaken by the Council in January/February 2015.

7.4 Following the Local Plan inspector's report, the Council will be taking the Plan forward for formal adoption in July 2015. The new Local Plan is therefore a material consideration and, given the inspector's conclusions, the Council considers that the new Local Plan should be afforded significant weight, in accordance with paragraph 216 of the NPPF.

Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies 2014-2029

Policy 1: Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development Policy 2: Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy Policy 4: Housing Provision 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 33: New Residential Development Policy 34: Affordable Housing 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

7.5 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.

7.6 Consideration should also be given to paragraph 17 (Core Planning Principles) and in particular the following paragraphs:

- Paragraph 50 - LPA's should deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, creating inclusive and mixed communities. - Paragraph 56 - The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is indivisible from good planning and should contribute positively to making places better for people. - Paragraph 64 - Permission should be refused for development which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area. - Paragraph 61 - Ensuring integration of new development into the built environment in addition to securing high quality and inclusive design. - Paragraph 69 - The planning system can play an important role in facilitating social interaction and creating healthy, inclusive communities. - Paragraphs 109, 113, 118 and 119 - The planning system should conserve and enhance the natural environment, enhancing biodiversity, protecting wildlife sites and protected species. - Paragraph 158 - LPA's should use a proportionate evidence base to inform inter alia a housing strategy that takes full account of relevant market and economic signals. - Paragraph 159 - LPA's should have a clear understanding of the housing needs in their area. LPA's should prepare a Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMAA) to assess their full housing needs. This should identify household and population projections, taking account of migration and demographic change and should address the need for all types of housing including affordable housing. - Paragraph 215 - Due weight to be given to relevant policies from Local Plan according to consistency with NPPF. - Paragraph 216 - The degree of consistency between emerging local plan policies and the NPPF. The closer the policies the greater the weight that may be given according to the stage of preparation.

7.7 Selsey Neighbourhood Plan

The Selsey Neighbourhood Plan (SNP) has been prepared and submitted for public consultation period under Regulation 16 and the 6 week consultation concluded on 11th June 2015. The application site is a preferred site in the SNP. No comments were received regarding the site during the consultation period. SNP Policy ASP02 allocates land at Drift Field - the current application site - for 100 new homes.

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 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 on 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:

B1 - Managing a changing environment

B2 - Greener living

B3 - Environmental Resources

D1 - Increasing housing supply

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.

8.0 Planning Comments

8.1 Background

The immediate background to this application is that exactly the same site already benefits from an extant outline planning permission for 110 dwellings permitted on 20th November 2014 under reference SY/14/02418/OUT. That outline permission in addition to establishing the principle of new housing in that location was for the approval of both the means of 'access' to the site and the 'layout' of the housing with other matters relating to 'scale' and 'landscaping' being reserved for later applications for the approval of reserved matters. A comparison between the layout approved on the extant outline permission and that now proposed under the current full application shows a very similar layout. The point of vehicular access to Drift Road is unchanged, the internal layout of the site with dwellings arranged in quadrants adopting a perimeter block layout with dwellings fronting onto the internal roads is repeated. The current application is submitted as an application for full planning permission rather than as an application for the approval of reserved matters because the applicant/developer who has acquired the site is proposing a very similar albeit slightly amended layout with different dwelling types which consequently occupy a different footprint to the layout of the dwellings shown on the approved outline layout. As before there is a large area of open space to the east incorporating the ecological enhancement area and SUDs drainage basin and an approximately 900 metre long dog walking track around the site perimeter. The main areas of difference between the current application and the outline permission are set out below in 'ISSUE 2' at paragraph 8.7.

8.2 Assessment

The application site benefits from an outline planning permission issued 8 months ago for the erection of 110 dwellings and this permission remains valid until 20th November 2016. With the principle of new housing on the site firmly established through a current permission it is considered that for this application the following assessment should be carried out:

1) Whether there have been any material changes in either planning policy or site circumstances since the outline permission which are of such significance that should now weigh against a fresh grant of planning permission; 2) Whether the amended layout, mix, design, form, appearance of the dwellings and the landscaping of the site are acceptable and respect the context of the surroundings.

8.3 ISSUE 1

At the time the outline planning application for 110 dwellings was being considered by the Planning Committee in October 2014, the planning policy position was that the Chichester Local Plan: Key Policies and modifications was undergoing its Examination in Public (EIP) and the Council could not demonstrate that it had a 5 year housing land supply. The SNP was just about to undergo its pre-submission consultation (Regulation 14).

8.4 Since consideration of the outline application at the October 2014 Committee the Local Plan Inquiry has concluded, the Inspector's report has been received confirming the Plan with modifications is sound and it is anticipated that the Chichester Local Plan on the recommendation of officers will formally be adopted by the Council on 14th July 2015. The policies in the Local Plan therefore now carry significant weight.

8.5 The new Local Plan strategy envisages that where no Neighbourhood Plan is produced housing sites will come forward through the Site Allocations DPD. Given that the site currently lies outside the defined Settlement Boundary for Selsey, the proposed development under a 'plan-led' approach to managing new development would be contrary to the adopted and new Local Plan. Since there is now an identified 5 year housing land supply within the Plan area, there is also an argument to be made that there are no compelling reasons to bring forward further housing sites which are outside the Settlement Boundary at this stage. To grant permission for this application at this stage, ahead of the ongoing site identification process, could be regarded therefore as being contrary to the new Local Plan and hence undermine the approach to housing provision. However, Selsey has produced a draft neighbourhood plan and will not therefore be subject to the Site Allocations DPD. The SNP has now completed its 6 week submission consultation period and Examination will follow later this year. The SNP although still not 'made' carries proportionately more weight (significant weight) than could previously be afforded to it in consideration of the outline planning application. The SNP identifies the application site under SNP Policy ASP02 as an allocated site for 100 dwellings to meet part of the strategic allocation for Selsey under policy 23 of the Chichester Local Plan. (Policy 23 sets this requirement at around 150 homes). The proposals address many of the objectives set out in Policy ASP02 i.e. by providing a dog walking route on site, an on- site green space to mitigate potentially harmful recreational impacts on Pagham Harbour SPA, a financial contribution towards wardening at the SPA and home information packs. The extant outline planning permission has established that 10 dwellings more than the policy allocation in the SNP is acceptable development on this site and achieves an acceptable density of development at approximately 28 dwellings per hectare (net developable site area).

8.6 Notwithstanding the changed policy circumstances described above, since the approval of the outline application for 110 dwellings and the move to a 'plan-led' approach to decision making, the fact remains that the site benefits from an extant outline permission granted relatively recently for a development of the same number of dwellings for a layout very similar to that which is now proposed. Officers are of the opinion that this situation together with the fact that the site is an allocated site promoted through the draft SNP which now has significant weight having been through its consultation phase, are material factors which weigh strongly in favour of permitting the development subject to those matters discussed below in Issue 2 below being acceptable.

8.7 ISSUE 2

The proposed layout of the development follows very closely the layout of the development permitted under the outline planning application with four quadrants of housing adopting a perimeter block layout with a large central area of open space comprising a toddlers play area. The single point of vehicular access to the site onto Drift Road remains in the same position as approved. The proposed dwellings fronting Drift Road are all two storey with a mix of detached, semi- detached and terraced houses with a maximum eaves height of 4.8 metres and a maximum ridge height of 8.7. They are set back 21-22 metres back from Drift Road, the same distance as for the approved outline layout. The front elevation of the proposed houses are approximately 37 metres from the front elevation of the existing bungalows to the south side of Drift Road and separated by the intervening and retained substantial roadside hedgerow. The comments of Selsey Town Council are noted with regard to the relationship between the proposed dwellings and the existing bungalows but the separation distance is significantly above the indicative 22 metres in the Council's design guidelines. It is a separation distance that has previously been considered acceptable by the Committee on the outline scheme and is not considered likely to result in unneighbourly development particularly given the 4-5 metre high intervening hedgerow and public highway. 8.8 In terms of comparison with the development on the approved outline planning permission, the outline permission was for just 2 bungalows in the whole scheme both shown located on the Drift Road frontage whereas 18 bungalows are now proposed (none on the Drift Road Frontage). The comments of the Town Council regarding the proposed 2 storey dwellings fronting Drift Road being out of keeping with the existing bungalows on the south side of Drift Road bungalows are noted but the current proposals in terms of scale are very similar to the outline permission layout with the exception that 2 bungalows on this frontage are now proposed as houses. The Committee are also advised that the previously approved two blocks of 2.5 storey flats on this Drift Road frontage each side of the new site access road are now replaced by 2 storey houses. The revised approach on the current application has therefore changed this part of the site but the changes across the entire Drift Road frontage are not considered so significant as to make the development unacceptable. The intervening Drift Road hedgerow will still function as a natural foil to visually soften the transition from the existing bungalows on Drift Road to the two storey homes on the site and with the proposals now proposing only 4 pedestrian openings through this hedgerow as opposed to the 6 permitted on the outline permission, the screening effect will be enhanced.

8.9 In terms of the form and appearance of the dwellings, the applicant has now modified some design elements in response to comments both from the Town Council and the Council's Conservation and Design Manager. For instance the originally proposed composite first floor timber boarding has been omitted from the development in favour of tile-hanging and the roof ridge alignment adjusted so that in instances where there is a break in the plane of the terraced house elevations because of a different house type, this break occurs on the front elevation rather than to the rear in order to give more variation and less uniformity from the public view. The Committee are also advised that the pepper-potting of the affordable and market dwellings has been changed since the original submission to ensure better overall integration with each quadrant of the layout now having some affordable units. The affordable dwellings are also tenure blind when compared with the private units in terms of the design and materials used. The context of the surrounding development is mixed with a variety of housing designs and forms which enclose the site to the north, east and south. There is therefore no established design 'template' to necessarily follow, and neither is the site in a conservation area or subject to any special character designation. It is considered overall that whilst the Conservation and Design Manager has expressed some qualms, the proposals have enough variety in house type, layout and materials to result in an acceptable development consistent with the advice in NPPF paragraphs 56 and 64 in particular.

8.10 In terms of the landscaping, the proposals retain the existing well established hedgerow planting which encloses the site on all sides. Structural tree planting is proposed to create well designed streets with private front gardens having evergreen and deciduous salt tolerant shrubs. On the east side of the site the SUDs provision will comprise a shallow grassy basin with a landscaped area surrounding it. The proposals are considered acceptable and the detailed delivery of the planting will be controlled through the imposition of planning conditions. 8.11 OTHER ISSUES

Matters relating to site density, traffic generation, archaeology, drainage, the recreational impact at Pagham Harbour SPA and sustainability have all been addressed as part of the extant outline permission and are addressed through conditions on the recommendation to permit this application or through relevant clauses in the S.106 agreement. The Committee will note the response of consultees in this regard in section 6 above.

8.12 In terms of sustainability it is relevant to note that in the appeal decisions at Park Farm for 50 dwellings on part of the adjacent land to the west of the application site and the previous 100 dwelling scheme on 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 also 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'.

8.13 Significant Conditions

The recommendation to permit this full application includes conditions regarding Construction Management to include restricting the parking of site operative vehicles to the site, wheel washing, hours of construction, the location of the construction compound; traffic routing for construction vehicles avoiding Mountford Road, SUDS, landscaping and foul drainage. Conditions from the extant outline permission where relevant are rolled forward for this application.

8.14 S.106 Agreement

In accordance with the Council's policies and infrastructure SPG the development attracts the need for the following obligations;

CDC 40% affordable housing (44 units) Community Facilities £193,490 Sport and Leisure £89,605 Public Art £39,631 Formal Open space/Toddler Play space on site

WSCC Primary Education £214,000 Libraries £22,387 Fire and Rescue £2,031 TAD £269,145 (see para 6.11 above for list of proposed schemes) Pagham Harbour SPA mitigation - 1.45 ha on-site SANGS and a 900m site perimeter dog walking route, homeowner information packs, financial contribution per dwelling (amount to be confirmed [tbc]) for specific off site mitigation measures including contribution to provision of a part-time, all year round warden post and projects identified and agreed with Natural England and RSPB at Pagham Harbour SPA.

NHS contribution £48,644

8.15 Conclusion

The principle of a housing development of 110 new homes on this site has already been established and the site benefits from an extant outline planning permission valid until 20th November 2016. This application slightly amends the layout and the setting out of the dwellings from that which was approved under the outline permission and hence has been submitted as a 'full' application rather than an application for the approval of 'reserved matters'. Nevertheless the proposed layout remains consistent with many of the principles established at outline stage - the quadrant perimeter blocks, the pepper-potted affordable housing, the landscaped perimeter dog walking track, the drainage attenuation features, the central open space and the large SANGs open space on the east side of the site. Additionally the current proposals introduce two smaller areas of open space each side of the new access from Drift Road. The proposed appearance, scale and design of the dwellings are considered appropriate to the setting of the site and the relationship to its surroundings.

8.16 The comments of Selsey Town Council are noted but must be viewed in the context of the extant approval on which this application is heavily based. Similarly the comments of Hunston and Donnington Parish Councils are noted. The issue of traffic impact on the B2145 Chichester Road and further north at the Selsey Tram and Stockbridge roundabout from 110 dwellings has already been addressed as part of the previous outline permission and again cumulatively when the Committee resolved to permit the development on the adjacent land to the west at Park Farm for the ASDA supermarket and 139 dwellings. The Committee will note that no objection to the current application has been raised by WSCC Highways.

8.17 The changed policy circumstances back to a plan-led approach on the basis that the Council is able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply and is about to adopt its Local Plan is significant in the assessment of housing applications going forward. However in this instance it is considered that the fact that the site benefits from a recent outline permission for the same number of dwellings in a very similar layout and that it is a site for housing which is allocated by the Selsey Neighbourhood Plan is a significant material consideration which weighs in favour of permitting the development.

8.18 Human Rights

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 DEFER FOR SECTION 106 THEN PERMIT

1 A01F Time Limit - Full 2 U94982 - Schedule of materials 3 U94984 - Construction Management Plan 4 U94985 - Landscaping Proposals 5 U94986 - Landscaping Implementation 6 U94987 - Surface Water Drainage Scheme 7 U95005 - SUDs maintenance manual 8 U94988 - Foul Water Drainage 9 U94989 - Foul/surface water implementation 10 U94990 - Bunding fuel storage tanks 11 U94991 - Pagham SPA Information packs 12 U94992 - Comply with Local Plan Policy 40 13 U94993 - Site Section drawing 14 U94994 - Street Lighting 15 U94995 - Bird and bat boxes 16 U94996 - Drift Road access 17 U94997 - Surface water run-off 18 U94998 - Emergency Access 19 U94999 - Visibility splays 20 U95000 - No occupation without car parking spaces 21 U95001 - No occupation until cycle spaces 22 U95002 - Phased approach to roads, footpaths 23 U95003 - Travel Plan 24 U95004 - Reptile Mitigation Strategy 25 U95008 - Approved Plans 26 U95035 - Land Contamination 27 U95038 - Air Quality

INFORMATIVES

1 U95010 - Informative - S.59 Agreement 2 U95011 - Informative - Off site highway works 3 U95012 - Informative - Unadopted Roads 4 U95013 - Informative - Temporary Highway Works 5 U95014 - Informative - Southern Water

For further information on this application please contact Jeremy Bushell on 01243 534734