Issue - meetings

6 Public Speakers

Mr Peter Atkins, Pagham Parish Council

Mr Colin Hamilton, Objector

Mr Jim Weston, Objector

Jenny Henderson, Agent

Izabel Philips, Supporter

Councillor David Huntley, Ward Member

Approval of details reserved by condition imposed under P/140/16/OUT relating to condition 30- management and maintenance for adjacent Pagham Harbour SPA Enhancement land.

          The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates where it was confirmed that the applicant had advised council officers they had offered to meet with the Parish Council to discuss the contents on the updated BGMP, however due to availability prior to the committee, this had not been possible. The applicant confirmed they had extended an invitation to the Sussex Ornithological Society (SOS) in August 2024 to discuss the mitigation plan, however this had been declined. A letter from the SOS to the applicants stated that they regarded the principal stakeholders in this matter to be Arun District Council, the Applicant and Natural England. Furthermore, the SOS clarified that their role was to provide data and records to support the consideration of the scheme. They added that as they did not manage land, they were also not able to offer any practical assistance in relation to the mitigation plan.

          The officer then provided members with a detailed updated on consultation responses received from Natural England, Environment Agency (EA) and Arun District Council’s Ecology Officer and Drainage Engineers, all of which had not lodged any formal objections to the proposals. The officer advised members that the requirement for a Flood Risk Activity Permit for the scrapes, as identified by the Environment Agency (EA), was a separate requirement to the consideration of this discharge of condition application. Securing discharge of this condition did not negate the need for any relevant permits from the EA. If the landowner was unable to obtain a permit for the scrapes, a new Brent Geese Mitigation Plan would need to be submitted for consideration. 

          Members were provided with detail on the additional 15 objection responses that had been received, those additional representations received did not introduce any new material considerations, nor did they raise any issues that had not been dealt with as part of the assessment and committee report. Comments, including those concerning the principle of housing and the request for a south coast cycle highway, remained non-material to the decision. Several comments were made in relation to the need for the presence of Brent Geese on the mitigation site to discharge the condition and/or deem that the scheme was successful. However, the requirement of the condition was for the developer to submit details showing the Council how the mitigation land identified would be managed in a way to allow for an overwintering crop suitable for the Brent Geese, that provided an equivalent foraging value for the Brent Geese to that lost by the development, should they require it. The condition required management of the land and favourable conditions, such as the removal of bird scaring and increased sight lines, which had been proposed.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 270