MINUTES OF FUNTINGTON PARISH COUNCIL (Virtual) MEETING 4 March 2021 PRESENT: Jane Mottershead (JM) Richard Littler (RL) Jean Simmonds (JS) MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC: Two 1. Apologies: None 2. Minutes of the last meeting: Meeting held on 4 February 2021, Proposed, Seconded and AGREED 3. Declaration of interest: Jean Simmonds - SDNP/21/00945/TCA - Tree in a Conservation Area 4. Public Questions: None 5. Planning Applications / Decisions i. Week 6 a. CDC Application Case No: FU/20/03306/FUL Case Officer: William Price Applicant: Mr. Smith Location: Land to the West of Newells lane Proposal: Stationing of caravans for residential purposes, 3 pitches each one with static caravan, mobile caravan, day room and parking. • A previous site on Newells lane was won on appeal and a further three appeals are pending. • The land although previously agricultural now looks like brownfield as there are now piles of hardcore. • There were Enforcements in place which are now on hold because of the planning application. • It is likely to be refused as all other applications at this location were but it will then go to appeal. FPC Objects to this Application • Gypsy and Traveller accommodation has been disproportionately met within the village of West Ashling, where there are 192 households in the settled community, and we now estimate over 90 Travellers pitches spread over six plots, to the south, east and west of the village of West Ashling. • Supplementary Planning Document ‘Planning Policy for Traveller Sites’ issued by Department for Communities and Local Government says: ‘When assessing the suitability of sites in rural or semi- rural settings, local planning authorities should ensure that the scale of such sites does not dominate the nearest settled community’. • Funtington Parish Council feel that the scale of these Traveller/Gypsy sites in West Ashling now dominate the nearest settled community. • SPPD states: ‘Local planning authorities should very strictly limit new traveller site development in open countryside that is away from existing settlements or outside areas allocated in the development plan. Local planning authorities should ensure that sites in rural areas respect the scale of, and do not dominate, the nearest settled community, and avoid placing an undue pressure on the local infrastructure.’ • The Application site does not have access to existing bus routes that provide a regular service to local villages, neither does the proposed site have access to necessary services including shops, schools and Medicare • There is no regular bus service in West Ashling, the nearest Bus service is 2.9 miles away in Funtington, the route to the bus stop is along narrow country roads with no pavements, no street lighting or grass verges, so it is not a safe pedestrian route. The service from Funtington going to Chichester has just 5 buses a day, 7:56, 10:31, 12:31, 15:01 and 17:31, the bus from Funtington to Petersfield has buses at 6.15, 08:40, 11:40, 13:05 and 16:15. ➢ The nearest school is an infants and primary school in West Ashling, there is no safe walking route to the school from Newells Lane, parents and children would need to walk along un-lit narrow country road, with no pavements, children outside the confines of the village, or anywhere west of the village Mill Pond in the village centre are not encouraged to walk to school, as the pedestrian route is so hazardous. ➢ The nearest senior schools are in Southbourne (3 miles away) and Kingsham Road, Chichester (6.5 miles away). ➢ The nearest shops are at Bosham Railway station (1.7 miles), but it would not be advisable to walk to these shops as the road is a fast, un-lit road with no pavements or grass verges. ➢ The nearest medical centre is at Southbourne, which is 2.5 miles away, so not within easy access of the village. ➢ In a recent Appeal Statement for another site in the village of West Ashling the Inspector stated: West Ashling is a small village within the National Park. The pattern of the settlement is nucleated, with development mainly clustered east of the junction of Down Street with Southbrook Road, and around the Mill Pond further to the east. The historic core is a designated Conservation Area. The result of all this is that the character and appearance of the appeal site have fundamentally changed. Having previously been part of the pastoral landscape leading up to the edge of the village, this area of land has been thoroughly domesticated, and is now very clearly perceived as residential. • The Supplementary planning Documents states: ➢ That plan-making and decision-taking should protect Green Belt from inappropriate development ➢ reduce tensions between settled and traveller communities in plan-making and planning decisions ➢ promote peaceful and integrated co-existence between the site and the local community • As a result of recent Appeals that have allowed more Gypsy sites in the village of West Ashling, the settled community are feeling more and more angry that these sites are getting larger and that more and more of the surrounding countryside is being developed and eroded, the settled community are also angry that some of these sites are being used for monetary gain, with pitches being applied for and then sub-let to anyone who wants to rent them, hence it is felt that there is no established need and these applications are actually big business for a few, unfortunately most of the settled community feel too intimidated to object. • A Travellers site in Newells Lane, adjacent to this application site, that has been given permission at Appeal, remains unoccupied and is now strewn with rubbish, rubble and what appears to be commercial waste. • Many of the Travellers speed through the village with total disregard to pedestrians, dog walkers, horse riders or wildlife, there have been minor incidents, like the Traveller children riding motor bikes and quad bikes across the village green, the traveller/Gypsy population often show aggressive behaviour when asked to slow down when seen speeding through the village, all of these incidents add up to the tension now experienced between the settled community and the Traveller/Gypsy community in the village of West Ashling. • The village of West Ashling has no shops, no bus service and no local medical service, the local Gypsies and Travellers do not integrate themselves in with the local settled community, they shut themselves away behind high walls and fences and act as a separate community. • The Parish Council understands that many of the mobile homes and static caravans on the Gypsy site’s in Scant Road East and West Ashling Road are being sub-let to people who do not qualify as Gypsies or travellers, the same situation also exists in neighbouring Westbourne. • There is no identified additional need for Gypsy and Traveller sites in West Ashling. • Caravans and new hardstanding and driveways have already been installed on this site without any Planning Approval. • Funtington Parish would like to see the land to the west of Newells Lane returned to open fields and countryside, as it was before the land was purchased by the existing owners. b. SDNP Decision Case No: SDNP/20/04949/HOUS Case Officer: Louise Kent Applicant: Mr Hatef Mansoubi Location: 3 Funtington Hall , Common Road, Funtington, PO18 9LL Proposal: Replacement of modern conservatory with a ground floor masonry extension and other minor works. Decision: Approved FPC made no comment on this application ii. Week 7 a. CDC Decision Case No: FU/20/03052/DOM Applicant: Mr Andrew Foyle Location: Saxon Chase, The Bridle Lane, Hambrook, Funtington, PO18 8UG Proposal: Erection of two storey and single storey front, side and rear extension and installation 2no. dormers to front elevation. internal alterations to create integral annexe. Decision: PERMIT FPC supported this application b. SDNP Application Case No: SDNP/21/00264/FUL Type: Full Application Case Officer: Rebecca Perris Applicant: Mr Richard Watney Location: Little Quinnings, Malthouse Lane, West Ashling, PO18 8DZ Proposal: Replacement of 1 no. dwelling house with landscaping and associated works. • This already has Permitted Development (PD) permission for an extension. Because it is a long fronted bungalow and the PD application also included a loft conversion and outhouses in the garden, the permitted development loophole allowed for an extension of 127%. • This application has therefore been submitted as an alternative to that large extension, on the grounds that this rebuild would result in a smaller property than the extended one. • The proposed property is to move 5m closer to the neighbour’s property and will cause extensive loss of light to that property. • There is some proposed change of use from agricultural land to garden, this could not be included on the PD application but also has not been included in this application. • If this application is refused it is assumed that it would go to appeal which will challenge the SDNP Policy SD31 (To reduce the loss of small homes in the National Park through significant extension or replacement by substantially larger homes). FPC Objects to this Application • The proposed replacement dwelling has been moved closer to the adjacent property (Magnolia Cottage) from 8 – 9.5 m to between 3.4 and 5m, and will extend 14.5 m beyond the back wall of the existing dwelling and down the full length of the garden of Magnolia Cottage, giving the residents of Magnolia Cottage a view from within their property, and from their garden, of a blank wall and roof 14.5m long and 4.8m high. The proposed building will block light and sunlight from the house and the garden of Magnolia Cottage with a loss of the amenities currently enjoyed by Magnolia Cottage.