Agenda item

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

P/134/16/OUT – Outline application for the development of up to 280 dwellings (including affordable homes), land for a replacement scout hut, land for an Ambulance Community Response Post Facility and land for either a 1FE primary school or care home.  Provision of a primary vehicular access from Sefter Road and demolition of No.80 Rose Green Road and creation of a pedestrian and emergency only access.  Provision of Public Open Spaces including associated children’s play areas, landscaping, drainage and earthworks.  This application also falls within the parish of Aldwick, Land north of Sefter road & 80 Rose Green Road, Pagham

The Principal Strategic Planner presented this report which advised that, although this application had been determined at the meeting on 13 November 2018 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 considerations:-

1.    The impact of the development upon the Infantry Section Post situated on site which was a non-designated heritage asset; and

2.    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.

A consultation response had been received from the Council’s Conservation Officer in respect of the non-designated heritage asset, i.e. the Infantry Section Post which was in situ on the site.  As a result, it was recommended that a condition be included that would require the developer to submit details for approval by the Local Planning Authority which would establish the feasibility of retaining or repairing the infantry section post, to also include measures to make the structure safe and secure.  Should it be found that retention was not possible then a submission of a scheme for recording the structure would be required.

In commencing the debate, concerns were expressed that every effort must be taken to preserve the World War 2 (WW2) infantry section post and the Principal Strategic Planner advised Members that they would be able to give more detailed consideration to that issue at the reserved matters stage.  The condition being recommended at this outline application stage would ensure that the applicant would take the necessary steps to provide the information required to enable an informed decision to be made with regard to the infantry section post.  The Group Head of Planning confirmed that the Committee could amend the recommended condition on the table and that there was no need to decline to determine for that reason.

Member comment was made that the matter was being treated casually by officers and, also, a concern expressed that the Pagham Neighbourhood Plan had been dismissed by officers.

A proposal was put forward, which was duly seconded, that this item should be deferred to enable officers to :-

1)    Under Local Plan Policy  HER SP1 to convey  to the developers that the Committee wishes to see the WW2 Infantry Section Post as a non-designated heritage asset retained and made safe and confirmation and details thereof to be brought back for consideration by a future Development Control Committee meeting.

2)    Work with representatives of Pagham Parish Council on the Pagham Development Management Plan to positively evaluate and establish how this may be integrated with Arun’s Local Plan, particularly in respect of Pagham Policy DM4 relating to Transport, Environmental and Economic Infrastructure, and to report back on progress thereof for consideration by a future Development Control Committee meeting.

3)    At the same time as the above reporting back, produce a report for consideration by the Committee on any material considerations and new information that have arisen since the resolution to grant on 13 November 2018 in respect of Local Plan Policies T SP1, H SP2, SD SP1, ENV DM1, ENV DM2, ENV DM5, W DM2, QE SP1 and QE DM3.    

  In response to the above, the Group Head of Planning confirmed that

1.    This was an outline application and it was within the gift of the Committee to amend the condition relating to the Infantry Section Post, negating the request to defer.

2.    Support and engagement had been offered to Pagham Parish Council in respect of the production of the Pagham Development Management Plan but to date members of that Council had chosen not to take up that offer. 

3.    The report on the table, together with the previous report, detailed the material considerations for discussion and what had already been determined, so the Group Head of Planning was unclear as to why a further report would be required.

 The Principal Solicitor reminded Members that, in order to defer the application, they had to demonstrate good reasons and she quoted from Planning Guidance that “Local Planning Authorities are at risk of an award of costs if they behave unreasonably, for example, by unreasonably refusing or failing to determine planning applications, examples include preventing or delaying  development which should clearly be permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other material considerations.”

In the course of discussion on the proposal tabled, Member comment was made that it was out of order as it should be more appropriately considered by the Planning Policy Subcommittee; the Committee should not and could not entertain objections to policy as that was not within its purview.  In addition, a Member view was expressed that it was important to highlight the legal advice that had been received and that the potential for costs against the Council for taking an improper decision must be seriously considered.

A Member response was made that there was potential new information that had not yet emerged; it was stated that that information would be firmed up and there would be more to come.  It was felt that officers should try again with Pagham Parish Council to see if it could be integrated with the Arun Local Plan.  The Group Head of Planning expressed his significant concern that the proposal appeared to be being put forward for deferral for a reason that was not yet in the public realm.

Following further debate, the Committee did not accept the officer recommendation to approve and

RESOLVED

That the application be deferred to enable officers to:-

1)  Under Local Plan Policy  HER SP1 to convey  to the developers that the Committee wishes to see the WW2 Infantry Section Post as a non-designated heritage asset retained and made safe and confirmation and details thereof to be brought back for consideration by a future Development Control Committee meeting.

2)  Work with representatives of Pagham Parish Council on the Pagham Development Management Plan to positively evaluate and establish how this may be integrated with Arun’s Local Plan, particularly in respect of Pagham Policy DM4 relating to Transport, Environmental and Economic Infrastructure, and to report back on progress thereof for consideration by a future Development Control Committee meeting.

3)  At the same time as the above reporting back, produce a report for consideration by the Committee on any material considerations and new information that have arisen since the resolution to grant on 13 November 2018 in respect of Local Plan Policies T SP1, H SP2, SD SP1, ENV DM1, ENV DM2, ENV DM5, W DM2, QE SP1 and QE DM3.    

(As the vote was tied, the Chairman used his casting vote to approve the amendment to the officer recommendation.)