Agenda item

Ward: Chanctonbury (Historic Ward)

Applicant: Thakeham Concrete Products Ltd & Thakeham Trust

The Head of Development reported that this application sought outline permission for the demolition of buildings on an industrial site, occupied by Thakeham Tiles, and the erection of 90 dwellings.  Matters for consideration were the principle of the development and a new access onto Rock Road.  An indicative layout of dwellings, roads, play area and landscaping had been submitted.

The indicative housing mix comprised four 1-bedroom, 23 2-bedroom, 36 3-bedroom and 27 4-bedroom units.  There would be 20% (18 units) of on-site affordable housing.  Should Thakeham Tiles cease trading instead of relocating, a full 35% of affordable housing would be secured through a legal agreement.

Members noted that the application site was in the West Chiltington, Thakeham & Ashington Ward, not the Chanctonbury Ward as incorrectly stated in the report.

The application site was an industrial site south of Rock Road, within the built-up area of Storrington and Sullington.  Some detached dwellings lay to the east, south and west.  There were fields and some dwellings beyond Rock Road to the north.  There was some dense woodland containing protected trees surrounding parts of the site.  A public footpath ran through the site from east to west.  

Officers advised of a proposed amendment to Condition 10, as printed in the report, regarding details of finished floor levels.  The amendment would require the submission of details of any required retaining structures that are deemed necessary to the site.  This referred specifically to the steep bank at the southern portion of the site and its relationship to adjoining properties to the south.  This amendment addressed concerns regarding the stability of the bank.

Storrington & Sullington Parish Council objected to the application. Thakeham Parish Council supported the proposal subject to conditions.  Washington Parish Council objected to the proposal.  There had been 18 representations objecting to the application and two in support. Since publication of the report a further six objections to the proposal had been received.  The applicant addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of Thakeham Parish Council also spoke in support of it.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were:  the principle of development; loss of employment land; site density and housing mix; affordable housing provision; landscape and trees; ecology; highways; impact on neighbouring amenity.  It was noted that a condition requiring the use of green energy could be secured at reserved matters stage. 

The Local Member considered the comments from the CCG (paragraph 3.2 of the report) regarding the quality of Glebe Surgery to be misleading, as the surgery provided a high quality medical service.

Members considered the need for comprehensive air quality mitigation, and noted that a scheme of air quality mitigation would need to be submitted and approved. 

Members discussed the level of affordable housing provision in the context of the applicant’s intended relocation of the business.  It was proposed and seconded that 35% affordable housing should be secured under the legal agreement on the understanding it could be reduced to reflect the cost of relocating should the company find an alternative site.  The motion was lost.  

It was agreed that, in the event that the business did not relocate and the additional 15% affordable housing be paid, the legal agreement should include a trigger for its payment to be linked to construction of the development, and the inclusion of an option for the additional contribution to be invested into the site.

RESOLVED

(i)      That a legal agreement be entered into to secure necessary highways works and 20% on-site affordable housing, to include a clause to secure the full 35% on-site affordable housing in the event that the business ceases trading instead of relocating.  And that the legal agreement includes a trigger on when the additional 15% affordable housing contribution should be payable (in the event the business closes and does not relocate and the 15% is required to be paid) linked to the build out of the site, and an option to re-invest the 15% contribution in the site either as extra units, or to improve the tenure split.

(ii)     That on completion of (i) above planning application DC/18/2095 be determined by the Head of Development, in consultation with Local Members, with a view to approval, subject to appropriate conditions.

(iii)     In the event that the legal agreement is not completed within three months of the decision of this Committee, the Director of Place be authorised to refuse permission on the grounds of failure to secure the obligations necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.