Six homes and wider access at The Steddle Stones, Hambrook, Chichester

What was proposed

The application proposed demolishing the existing dwelling, widening its access and building six detached homes, providing five additional dwellings overall.

“Planning permission is sought for the demolition of the existing dwelling, widening of the existing access to Broad Road, and erection of 6 no. detached dwellings (a net gain of 5 dwellings on the site). The replacement dwelling would replace the existing bungalow on the site with a two storey 4 bedroom dwelling fronting Broad Road.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site contained one dwelling and garden beside the railway, was partly within the settlement boundary, and lay in Flood Zone 1.

“The application site is located just north of the railway line on the eastern side of Broad Road. The site currently contains a single dwelling and amenity space. The site is partially located within the Settlement Boundary Area, with the rear garden largely being outside of the Settlement Boundary The application site is a flat level site, bound by hedgerows on the rear boundaries. The site is largely laid to lawn with some residential landscaped features.”

“To the north of the site is a residential property and garden, further to the north is a larger site of 30 dwellings currently under construction.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended deferral for a Section 106 agreement followed by permission because the site was sustainable and identified harms did not outweigh five additional homes.

“The Council can currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, however from July 2026 the Council is likely to be required to deliver additional housing. The site is located within a sustainable location and makes an efficient use of land and there are no harms identified which would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of delivering additional housing.”

“Based on the preceding assessment it is considered that this is a sustainable form of development which would provide additional housing without adverse impact on the character of the area. The proposal therefore complies with development plan policies NE2, NE5, NE6, NE11, NE17, NE22, P2, P6 and T2 and the Neighbourhood plan and therefore the application is recommended for approval.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council objected, while statutory consultees generally raised no objection subject to conditions or mitigation; Network Rail raised level-crossing concerns.

“No objection subject to conditions relating to glazing specifications. Comments made about the noise level in the amenity space of the south west dwelling.”

“Network Rail are concerned about this level crossing, especially due to the proximity between the entrance to this site and the start of the level crossing. Network Rail would be supportive of any measures that would encourage pedestrians and drivers to turn right (to the north) instead of going directly over the crossing.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The committee heard from the parish council and the applicant, after the officer presented the report and the proposed layout was shown.

Members’ questions and debate

Members discussed construction traffic, railway safety, wildlife boxes, hedgerows, housing mix, noise, refuse access, overlooking and the amended front dwelling.

“Addressing concerns raised regarding vehicular movements related to the site; [name withheld] explained how the construction phase would be managed through condition 5 which required a Construction and Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) to be submitted. The CEMP required the developer to explain the proposed routeing for construction traffic.”

“Regarding the issue of bulk on the refusal of the original scheme; [name withheld] explained the issue of bulk referred to the unit at the front of the scheme, this had been amended with the proposed dwelling being brought into conformity with neighbouring properties.”

Minutes

The vote

The committee voted by show of hands to support deferral for a Section 106 agreement followed by permission.

“Following a vote by show of hands, the Committee agreed to support the report recommendation to defer for section 106 then permit.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was deferred for the Section 106 agreement and then permitted subject to the reported conditions and informatives, with amendments to conditions 5 and 7.

“Resolved; Defer for Section 106 then permit, subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report; including amendments to conditions 5 and 7.”

Minutes

Conditions and changes

Condition 5 was amended to include engagement with Network Rail’s ASPRO team, while condition 7 was amended to require plural wildlife-box installations.

“Responding to the request for more than one hedgehog, bird, and bat box to be installed; [name withheld] agreed that condition 7 could be amended from singular installations to plural installations.”

Minutes