Agenda item

5 Public Speakers

Mr Atkins, Pagham Parish Council

Jenny Henderson, Agent

Mr David Maclean, Objector

Mr Colin Hamilton, Objector

Millie Dodd, Supporter 

Outline application with some matters reserved for a proposed residential development of up to 110 No. dwellings including means of access into the site (not internal roads), with all other matters (relating to appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) reserved. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan and affects a Public Right of Way.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates.

After Public Speakers had been heard the Chair invited the officer to respond to any points raised. The Officer confirmed that all points raised had been addressed in the report and report update.  

The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Partridge and seconded by Councillor woodman.

During member debate the following was raised, how many applications a year where they fall outside of the built-up area boundary did the council consider, it was confirmed approximately 4-5 a year. Concern relating to the protection of the Black Poplars that were in situ was raised, these absorb thousands of litres of water a year and currently there was no TPO in place for them, whilst those on the southern and northern boundaries were protected with TPO’s, the officer confirmed that TPO’s had been requested for these. It was stated that a balanced approach should be applied to the consideration of the application, whilst it was a departure from the Local Plan, in a strategic gap and close to Pagham Harbour, the council did have a housing shortfall, and this application would assist with that. Comments regarding flood risk mitigation, and the public perception of the Local Plan that sets out an allocated number of dwellings to be built versus the continued and increased amount of development seen to be coming forward. It was also commented that having Green Space was also important for communities.

The Group Head of Planning reminded members of an appeal that was held 12 months ago for 100 homes, nearby to this site and this was an important material consideration that had shaped the recommendation. 

Members continued their debate, considering points on building on Grades 1 and 2 land and its impact for the area, it was queried if the appeal referred to by officers had been approved, it was confirmed it had. Further concerns made relating to the strategic gap, built-up area boundary and traffic. As the debate moved on there were comments made in support of the application which considered affordable housing allocation with sites of this size, it was also noted that at this point in the debate no refusal reason had been heard.  A statement was made relating to flood risk urging members to consider using an online flood risk website. On request it was confirmed by the Group Head of Planning the council uses Environment Agency based data , which was the most up to date data for the area and includes climate change factors.  Final points raised considered a reason for refusal based on the comments made by Southern Water (page 10 of the report) where it detailed the infrastructure, and enforcement works that would be required to be undertaken including a 24-month timeframe for completion.

The Chair then summarised the debate, highlighting key points raised and reminding members if they were considering voting against the recommendation, what would the reasoning for this be and would the council be able to defend that decision at an appeal. He then invited the Group Head of Planning to address the committee where he stated that he understood many of the comments that had been made during debate, however he believed the report before them was fair in acknowledging those concerns. He advised members that the NPPF was key for them in their decision making, reminding them that the council had previously tried to defend appeals and had been unsuccessful.  

Final comments made included the need for improved infrastructure to be in place before more development was seen and clarity was sought from officers on the location of the appeal site that had been referred to during debate. As there were no other comments to be made the Chair put the recommendation to the vote.

The Committee

RESOLVED

That the application be approved conditionally subject to a Section 106 agreement.