Decision details

Previously considered application P/25/17/OUT - Church Barton House, Horns Lane, Pagham PO21 4NZ

Decision Maker: Planning Committee

Decision status: Recommendations Approved (subject to call-in)

Is Key decision?: No

Is subject to call in?: No

Decisions:

            (Prior to consideration of this application, Councillor Huntley spoke as the Ward Member.)

 

            P/25/17/OUT - Outline application with all matters reserved – Erection of up to 65 No. dwellings, access roads, landscaping, open space & associated works, Church Barton, Horns Lane, Pagham

 

The Principal Strategic Planner presented this report which advised that, although this application had been determined at the meeting on 23 January 2019 to be approved subject to completion of the S106 Agreement in accordance with the officer’s recommendation, it had now been brought back to enable Members to consider the following new material consideration:-

 

1.    Publication of the draft Pagham Neighbourhood Plan following its publication under Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012.

 

The Committee was advised that officers had been made aware of several points raised by Members which asserted that there were new material considerations which would justify the reconsideration of highways and ecological matters.  In relation to that, the Council’s Planning Officers had sought advice from West Sussex County Council as the Local Highway Authority and Natural England, together with advice from the Council’s Legal Team.  The advice received was that the matters raised with officers did not constitute new material considerations which would justify re-opening the debate or reconsidering those matters.

 

Members were strongly advised that the debate should be limited to those matters which constituted new material consideration only, as set out in the report and that any debate, weight or consideration given to any matter other than those identified within the officer’s recommendation could result in an unsound and therefore legally challengeable decision.

 

With regard to the Pagham Development Management Plan (also known as the Pagham Neighbourhood Plan), which was a material consideration in the determination of this application, the professional conclusion of officers was that the weight which could be attributed to it at the present time was extremely limited for the reasons set out in the report.

 

In opening up the debate, Member comment was made that the argument used under Planning Application P/136/16/OUT was still relevant for this application and so a deferral along the same lines was being sought.  It was felt that officers should work with the Parish Council on the development of the Pagham Development Management Plan and that there were issues that had arisen since planning permission had been granted which needed to now be taken account of .   

 

 The Principal Solicitor provided advice that any deferral had to be based on sound reasons otherwise the Council could be liable to have substantial costs awarded against it.

The Group Head of Panning reiterated that the Policies in the Local Plan had been fully considered by Full Council and had been adopted for over a year.  Also, the draft Pagham Development Management Plan could not be afforded any weight for the reasons detailed in the report and therefore the officer’s recommendation to approve still stood.

 

This view received Member endorsement and further comment was made that the site formed part of the strategic allocations in the Local Plan and any suggestion to depart from that was ludicrous.  It was further felt that if the application was deferred it could be seen an illegal decision.

 

The Committee

 

RESOLVED

 

That delegated authority be granted to the Group Head of Planning for the completion of the Section 106 Agreement, substantially in accordance with the Heads of Terms previously approved by the Committee on 23 January 2019, and to grant planning permission subject to the S106 Agreement, conditions and informatives.

 

            As a request had been made for a recorded vote to be taken, those voting FOR were Councillors Bennett, Blanchard Cooper, Bower, Chapman, Charles, Clayden, Edwards, Northeast and Roberts (9).  Those voting AGAINST were Councillors Coster, Ms Thurston, Mrs Worne and Mrs Yeates (4). Councillors Brooks and Lury ABSTAINED (2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Report author: Nicola Moore

Publication date: 20/11/2019

Date of decision: 04/09/2019

Decided at meeting: 04/09/2019 - Planning Committee

Accompanying Documents: