Planning Committee Decisions made electronically 20th May 2020
DECISIONS MADE BY EMAIL ON 20th MAY 2020
Sidlesham Parish Council Planning Committee was unable to meet in the usual way in the Church Hall due to Covid 19 restrictions. It communicated by email and reached the following decisions. These decisions will be ratified at the first meeting when Councillors can meet
1. New Planning Applications
1.1 SI/20/00915/FUL - Jamic Nursery Street End Lane Sidlesham PO20 7RG
Demolition of 2 no. timber buildings and construction of 1 no. replacement timber building to be used for dog training, dog grooming, physiotherapy and business office and erection of 1 no. shed.
The Parish Council has no objection to the buildings. However, councillors would like the caveat imposed that these buildings will not be converted to dwellings in the future: they are not agricultural/horticultural buildings.
1.2 SI/20/00942/DOM & SI/20/00943/LBC - Quay House Mill Lane Sidlesham PO20 7LX
Alterations to ancillary building
The PC objects to the Application. It considers the proposed alterations to be overdevelopment of a listed property. Should CDC be minded to grant permission, the PC would like the caveat imposed that the building remains ancillary to the main house.
1.3 SI/20/01055/FUL - 15 Chalk Lane Sidlesham PO20 7LW
Demolition of existing outbuildings and replacement with 2 no. dwelllings following Prior Approval applications 19/02969/PA3Q and 19/01889/PA3Q
The PC has no objection to the design of the 2 dwellings.
1.4 SI/20/00961/FUL - 84 Fletchers Lane Sidlesham PO20 7QG
Erection of 1 no. 3 bed bungalow as alternative to planning permission SI/17/03665/FUL.
The PC objects to the above Application. The new building will not be on the site of the previous PA3Q grant of permission, nor does it appear that the original shed will be demolished. The north and south walls of the new property would be built immediately against the property boundary line. If the existing shed, for which planning permission was previously obtained, is not demolished, it should lose its right to apply for PA3Q conversion in the future.
1.5 SI/20/01020/FUL - Solufeed Ltd The Depot Chichester Road Sidlesham Common
Extension to industrial building.
1.6 SI/20/01077/PNO - Chalder Farm Chalder Lane Sidlesham Chichester
General purpose agricultural building.
1.7 SI/20/01126/DOM - Longreach 14A Chalk Lane Sidlesham PO20 7LW
Erection of double garage and store. Variation of condition 2 of planning permission SI/19/03123/DOM to enable amended siting for permitted outbuilding. Change approved 'Drawing 3 - Proposed Site Plan' to 'Drawing 3A - Proposed Site Plan'.
1.8 SI/20/01125/FUL - Longreach , 14A Chalk Lane, Sidlesham, PO20 7LW
Erection of agricultural barn to house machinery. Amended siting and design to planning permission SI/18/01584/FUL.
2. Planning Decisions
2.1 SI/20/00396/ADJ - Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve Selsey Road Sidlesham PO20 7NE
Approval of details reserved by conditions imposed under P/97/15/PL relating to conditions 4-programme of archaeological investigation & mitigation; 5-final plans & details concerning design & construction of Tern Islant compensation measure; 6-adaptave management plan setting out how harbour opening will be monitored & how approved compensation/mitigation measures will be reviewed; 7-details of proposed mitigation measures to be employed on sections of remaining Spit; 8-management plan for proposed Little Tern Island compensation measure; 9-Construction Management Plan; 14- scheme detailing deployment of tide gauge within the harbour to monitor tidal height & tidal behaviour. No Objections raised.
2.2 SI/20/00851/PNO - Fairfields Ham Road Sidlesham PO20 7NX
Construction of 2 no. reservoirs to hold winter abstracted water for irrigating summer crops.
PRIOR APPROVAL NOT REQUIRED
3. Matters of urgent public importance. None.
4 Matters of Information
4.1 19/02840/FULEIA |- Medmerry Park Stoney Lane Earnley Chichester West Sussex PO20 7JP
Hybrid planning application - Full application for the redevelopment of Medmerry Park to provide 518 static holiday caravans and lodges in lieu of 308 holiday bungalows and associated works including drainage, landscaping, habitat enhancement areas, access roads, footpaths and a comprehensive flood defence scheme including bund. Outline planning application for the part demolition of the existing facility buildings and erection of replacement facility buildings together with extension/refurbishment of existing facility buildings (with all matters reserved except for access).
Following an electronic meeting on 5th May 2020, the PC submitted the following comments to CDC:
Sidlesham Parish Council, although not a statutory consultee on the above Planning Application, had serious concerns regarding the overdevelopment of land in an important rural area of outstanding natural beauty. The extensive site covered in the application covers an ecologically sensitive area close to Medmerry and Pagham Harbour Nature Reserve. 50% of the Medmerry tidal lagoon, the eastern part, is in Sidlesham and the PC is concerned that this whole area is preserved as a natural habitat. Medmerry lagoon is a key outlet for two, if not three rifes and CDC should be very aware of disturbing the natural water flow with the works planned and ensure that any development will not impinge on that. The effect on local flora and fauna and the environment in general from light pollution and significantly increased atmospheric pollution from increased traffic will be detrimental. Both the A286 and the B2145 struggle to cope with traffic congestion in summer. The increased traffic along the main roads from Chichester will inevitably lead to an increase in the regular tailbacks already suffered by those on the Manhood Peninsula. In addition, when the A286 is blocked, as it regularly is, satnav devices will lead drivers to travel along Almodington Lane, a small windy lane and potentially foster the development of a rat-run through Easton Lane and up to Highleigh.
Sidlesham PC believes CDC needs to look carefully at sewage capacity. We know that Southern water is responsible in theory but the extra strain on sewage infrastructure will have consequences on the surrounding area’s systems which we know are fragile. The capability of Sidlesham works needs to be examined in detail.
Lastly, we already have a preponderance of large holiday villages in the area with Bunns, Pagham and many others in the Witterings/Bracklesham area. Yet another large development is going to seriously damage the character of the area as an unspoilt coastal area, one of the few remaining on the south coast.