Minutes of the Meeting of North Mundham Parish Council held on the 1st March 2016 PRESENT: Cllrs. Denia Turnbull (Chairman), Frances Neave, Paul Chivers, Annie Maclean, Keith Phillips and Peter Stephens In attendance: Mrs Louise Chater (Clerk), District Cllr. Paul Jarvis, County Cllr. Simon Oakley and two members of public. 38.16 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME ON MATTERS ON THE AGENDA Two residents of Chichester were in attendance to gather evidence with regard to the views of the parish council on the proposed A27 developments. They confirmed that they lived North of the City, however they had an open mind and wished to understand the issue. 39.16 APOLOGIES AND REASONS FOR ABSENCE Cllr. Tim Russell – prior commitment Cllr. Hugo Wall – prior commitment Cllr. Rob Callaway-Lewis – work commitment 40.16 CODE OF CONDUCT 1. Declarations of Interest of items included on the agenda – 46.16(i) Cllr. Stephens. 2. Dispensation Request – none. 41.16 MINUTES 19.16 amended to read. He stated that the hedgerow on the Lagness Road adjacent to the properties provided a safety barrier and sound protection from the road. Cllr. Chivers stated that this route had been a traditional crossing point and some children returning from school continue to use this route and if the Mill Lane hedgerow was cut back this would make it safer. 23.16 ‘would’ amended to ‘might’. 36.16(1) amended to read: Cllr. Chivers reported that B&M had rodded the drain in Post Office Lane at the end of Church Road. In addition, the minutes were amended to show Cllr. Phillips in attendance. On a proposal by Cllr. Neave, it was RESOLVED to agree and sign the minutes of the meeting held on the 2nd February 2016; this was duly completed. 42.16 COUNTY COUNCILLOR’S REPORT RELEVANT TO THE PARISH County Cllr. Oakley reported: 1. Council Tax – The County Council had resolved to increase their proportion of the council tax by 3.95% The County Council had highlighted the need for continued work on drainage system t and had allocated £½ million to Operation Watershed. 2. Minerals Plan – the short list of sites would be published next month. 3. Boundary Review – the decision by the Boundary Commission was expected to be received in May. 4. Winter Maintenance – the County Council were issuing snow shovels to Parish Councils. 5. A27 Chichester Bypass – the County Council would review the options on 30th March and 15th April. County Cllr. Oakley understood that halls had been booked by Highways England in Boxgrove, Selsey and Wittering but the officers had not been able to confirm this information with Highways England. Highways England had not published the date of commencement of consultation. The County Council continued to seek an extension of time. The Chairman asked if the plans would be issued to Parish Councils in hard copy. County Cllr. Oakley was unable to confirm if this would be the case but advised that if it was only issued online and the information was not clear then Highways England should be contacted immediately. It was noted that the consultation period would be followed by an assessment period. Highways England’s website stated that it expected to be in the position to publish the preferred choice by the end of 2016; a second consultation period would then be held on the preferred choice. 2 43.16 DISTRICT COUNCILLOR’S REPORT RELEVANT TO THE PARISH District Cllr. Jarvis reported: 1. Local Boundary Review – Chichester District Council were looking to reduce the number of elected members from 45 to 36 to equalise the number of people each member represents. However, he did not think that North Mundham would be adversely affected. 2. Light pollution – District Cllr. Jarvis reported that he had spoken to a number of officers, and had come to the conclusion that there was not an easy answer. The issue with older sites, in particular the ones that had planning permission a considerable time ago, was that it was unlikely that there were planning conditions with regard to lighting attached to the permission. A number of the sites had CLERK planning restrictions and therefore he recommended the Parish Council identify the sites that were in breach of the planning conditions. It was agreed that the Clerk would carry out the research, and the council would then contact the appropriate grower prior to notify enforcement. It was noted that a member of West Sussex Growers had raised the issue with growers in the area and it was hoped that this would alleviate some of the issues. 3. Community Infrastructure Levy had been adopted and was now being charged where appropriate. 4. Council Tax – the District Council had resolved to increase their proportion of the council tax by 3.4% 44.16 MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES None. 45.16 PLANNING 1) To consider all notified planning permission applications 16/00424/ELD - Case Officer - Chris Bartlett Mr & Mrs Jimmy and Faye Chatfield 10 Acres Land North of Fisher Common Nursery Fisher Lane North Mundham PO20 1YU Continuous occupation for in excess of 4 years of barn style building erected under planning permission 10/00517/FUL granted on 28 April 2010. On a proposal by Cllr. Stephens it was RESOLVED to object to this application. Concern was expressed with regard to the five statutory declarations which accompany the application; the Council believed they provide little credible evidence that this site had been in residential occupation for the last four years. Examination of the register of council tax bands and 3 Royal Mail’s ‘Postcode Finder’ showed no entry for this property. Members of the Council had not observed regular comings and goings from the property and for much of the time the access gate had been chained and padlocked shut. Photographic evidence shows that the major conversion work to the building from its original built form did not take place until the second half of 2015. The breach of planning regulations was reported to the District Council’s planning enforcement office at this time when the changes were noticed. In 2013, the same applicant submitted an application for the erection of an open fronted barn (13/02768/FUL). The planning statement describes the site “Within the yard there is an “L” shaped stable building comprising five stables and a tack room which was granted planning permission in 2008 (08/04286/FUL) and a hay and machinery barn granted permission in 2010 (10/00517/FUL).” There was no mention of any residential use. The Henry Adams planning statement states that the barn (subject of this application) was a hay and machinery barn being used for the storage of hay. The report also states that the nearest dwelling was approximately 35metres on neighbouring property to the south east and no reference was made to another dwelling on this property. The supporting paperwork for this application also includes a report by the planning officer who conducted a site visit on 18 September 2013. Although the applicant claims his family were in residence at that time, there was no mention in this report of any form of residential accommodation; it simply refers to ‘a stable complex’. 16/00307/DOM - Case Officer: - Paul Hunt Mr S Sharpe Runcton Mill Mill Lane Runcton Chichester Replacement kitchen. On a proposal by Cllr. Stephens it was RESOLVED to object - whilst the council supports the application in principle it was concerned that there should be more precise information for a grade II listed building in the conservation area. The council would be happy to re-consider the same proposal with more accurate information. 4 16/00308/LBC - Case Officer: - Paul Hunt Mr S Sharpe Runcton Mill Mill Lane Runcton Chichester Replacement kitchen. On a proposal by Cllr. Stephens it was RESOLVED to object - whilst the Council supports the application in principle it was concerned that there should be more precise information in support of an application for list building consent. The council would be happy to re-consider the same proposal with more accurate information. 16/00253/TCA - Case Officer: - Henry Whitby Mr Adam Threlfall Springdale Cottage Runcton Lane Runcton Notification of intention to crown reduce by 40% on 1 no. Mimosa tree (T1). Reduce west sector by up to 4m, crown raise by up to 5m and reduce limbs overhanging boundary by no more than one third on 1 no. Monterey Cypress tree (T2). Thin by 30% first major limb growing east, remove branch growing east into shrubs, crown raise by up to 4m (removing limbs of 100mm or less in diameter) and reduce limbs (overhanging boundary) up to 6m (above ground level) by no more than a third on 1 no. Canadian Maple Tree (T3). On a proposal by Cllr. Stephens it was RESOLVED to object as the council were concerned about the poor quality of the submission. The council would re-consider the application with the provision of better information. 16/00357/TPA –Case Officer – Henry Whitby Fletcher Close North Mundham Crown reduce by 30% and crown lift by up to 10-12m (above ground level) (removing overhanging branches, sucker growth and epicormic growth) on 3 no. Lime trees {T4- T6) and 4 no. Sycamore trees (T7-T9 and T12). Fell 1no. Sycamore tree {Tll). All 8 no. trees were subject to NM/05/00022/TPO. On a proposal by Cllr. Stephens it was RESOLVED to object : 1. These are significant trees in the North Mundham urbanscape and the 30% crowning and lifting to 10 -12 metres would have a major impact on the trees 2. 5 out of the original 12 protected trees had previously been removed.