Agenda item

To consider any petitions received from the public.

 

Petition Relating to Development in Pagham - Planning Applications P/25/17 OUT, P/140/16 OUT, P/134/16 OUT and P/30/19 OUT

 

A Petition has been submitted to the Council from Mr and Mrs Rawlins in relation to planning applications P/25/17 OUT, P/140/16 OUT, P/134/16 OUT and P/30/19 OUT. 

 

The petition organiser will be given 5 minutes (maximum) to present the

petition at the meeting. The relevant Committee Chairman will be given 5

minutes (maximum) for a right of reply before Councillors discuss the petition.(10 Minutes)

 

As the Petition contains over 1,500 signatures it requires a debate by Full Council.

 

Following the presentation of the Petition Members are invited to debate the Petition for thirty (30) minutes with each councillor allowed to speak for a maximum of 3 minutes. The attached report provides the background information for the Council to consider in holding this debate. (30 minutes)

 

 

            There were no petitions presented to this meeting.

 

 

            The Chair confirmed that a petition relating to development in Pagham covering planning applications P/25/17/OUT, P/140/16 OUT, P/134/16/OUT and P/30/19/OUT had been received by the Council and required Full Council debate as the number of signatures exceeded the  1,500 stipulation set out in the Council’s Constitution triggering a Full Council debate.

 

            The wording of the Petition was shared to the meeting confirming that:

 

            We, the undersigned, petition Arun District Council – Ref: P/25/17/OUT, P/140/16 OUT, P/134/16/OUT and P/30/19/OUT with the purpose of the petition being to ensure that the Full Council of Arun District Council give consideration to the revocation of the extant but unimplemented outline planning permissions as referred above under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which reads as follows:  97 Power to Revoke or Modify Planning Permission.

 

            A report from the Director of Place had been provided to Members to assist in debating the petition. The report had four appendices containing the following information. Appendix A [Statement - the case on behalf of the petitioners]: Appendix B [Briefing Paper on Revocation produced by the House of Commons Library): Appendix C [Plan indicating four sites); and Appendix D [Statements from parties representing each of the four sites). Councillors had also received external QC advice which had been circulated under legal professional privilege.

 

            In line with the Council’s Petition Scheme, set out in the Council’s Constitution at Part 8 – Codes and Protocols, Section 4 – Petitions Scheme  - Paragraph 5.0 Full Council debates, the Chair firstly invited the Petition Organiser, Mr Rawlins, to present the petition.

 

            Mr Rawlins confirmed the purpose of the petition which was to ensure that the Full Council of Arun District Council gave consideration to the revocation or modification of extant unimplemented outline planning applications as listed in the report under Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act  1990, as amended. He explained how the petition had originally been submitted to the Council on 8 February 2021 with 2,192 signatures but Officers had claimed that the number of signatures were invalid preventing the petition from being presented to the meeting of Full Council held in March 2021.   The petition had been resubmitted to the Council on 11 May 2021 with a total of 3,019 signatures, however, it had been confirmed that the petition could not be presented to either of the May Council meetings.  Mr Rawlins claimed that the Officer report in response to the petition was seriously and legally flawed in that it misrepresented the petition and the options available to the Council regarding a response under the Council’s Constitution.  Mr Rawlins further claimed that the report was misleading in respect of the Development Plan and all of the material considerations relevant to revocation and failed to provide all of the relevant facts, reliable evidence or information to support and justify the recommendations set out in the Officer report. In summing up, Mr Rawlins outlined that he had been independently advised that should the Council choose to approve the recommendations outlined in the report, these would represent legally changellable decisions. Since the Council was considering the revocation requested by the petition, and these were ones that the Planning Committee was required to make the final decision on, the only issue for the Council to consider was whether or not to refer the recommendations to the Planning Committee for further investigation which was seen as the safest and most sensible cause of action to take. 

 

            The Chair then invited the Chair of the Planning Committee to make a response to the petition.

 

            The Chair of the Planning Committee, Councillor Chapman, stated that he would be responding to the petition in terms of the way that it had been written, not how it had been presented by the petition organiser. The petitioner’s statement of case was unconvincing in terms of the Development Plan. It was clear from the Committee reports at Appendix C that for each of the planning permissions the decision was made in accordance with the Development Plan. The statement of case in the petition did not explain convincingly why they were in error or that there was a new Development Plan that would enable a different view to be taken. In terms of important material considerations, it was apparent that the contribution that these sites could make to the five year land supply and housing provision generally was vital both in the original determination and in any revocation.  Councillor Chapman stated that the petition failed to deal with this point in a convincing way and he explained why. On the matter of compensation, this was a material matter in terms of the cost to the Council. Councillor Chapman confirmed that this was his initial response to the petition.

 

            Councillor Chapman then formally proposed the four recommendations as set out in the Officer’s report which were then seconded by Councillor Bower.

 

            The Chair then invited questions on the Officer report from Members before inviting debate.

 

            The questions asked have been summarised below:

 

·         It had been hoped that the QC providing the external legal advice would have been present at this meeting to respond to questions on the advice provided.

·         The advice had been received at too short notice and Members should have been presented with an opportunity to have had a private briefing with the QC. 

·         Suggestions were made that as the petition was about planning matters, then why had it not been considered by the Planning Committee where Members had received training on planning matters.

·         Other Councillors also asked for an explanation as to why the petition had not been presented to either the Planning Committee or Planning Policy Committee first. The Interim Monitoring Officer explained that as the petition had accumulated over 1,500 signatures, it was a constitutional requirement for the petition to be debated at a meeting of Full Council. This had also been the express wish of the petition organiser.

·         Was it fair to characterise that the legal advice received backed up the information provided and views expressed in the Officer’s report? The Interim Monitoring Officer and the Chief Executive both confirmed that the Officer report had been drafted based on internal legal advice.  The external advice received strongly supported that internal legal advice and supported the conclusions outlined in the report.

·         Once Councillor stated that the legal advice from the QC had not addressed or covered important matters such as exploration of land values which could be affected by many different issues such as the property market, climate change and flooding. Such issues elsewhere had been seen to make very significant effects upon land values and even to make land undevelopable.

·         The same Councillor made a point that the Planning Inspector R J Jackson on the Bonhams Appeal had declared certain sites as undeliverable reducing the land supply down by 2.9 years. He opined that all of these issues had to be explored with the QC first via a private Members’ Seminar and before the petition could be debated. He did not feel that Officers were able to answer these questions as the Officers were not the QC who had given the advice.  He was disappointed that the QC was not available at the Council meeting to answer questions.

 

            Prior to inviting Member debate on the petition, the Chair invited Councillor Chapman to speak as the proposer to the recommendations in the report.  Councillor Chapman stated that in deciding whether in time it would be expedient to revoke any or all four of the planning permissions, it was important for Members to consider  what the Development Plan said about the four sites. Firstly, Policy HSP1 made it clear that the Council’s housing requirements for the plan period 2011 to 2031 was for 20,000 new homes. The same policy detailed which sites were allocated as strategic housing sites and the number of units to be built on each.  Site SD1 Pagham South was scheduled to deliver 400 homes and SD2 Pagham North 800 homes. Policy HSP2 set out the criteria by which each site allocation should be assessed to achieve a comprehensively planned form of development. Policy HSP2 set out a more detailed policy environment for both sites.  Finally, none of the sites in question were shown as Green Infrastructure on any plans linked to GISP1 as is stated in the petition.  Councillor Chapman outlined that it was important to remember that the Local Plan had never been subject to legal challenge after it had been adopted in July 2018 and so it remained to be the development plan for the District including the Parish of Pagham. It needed to be afforded the legal status offered, in statute to adopted development plans. Revocation of any or all permissions was not an appropriate nor acceptable mechanism to amend the Local Plan. Two further important material considerations were outlined and brought to Members’ attention.  The statement in the petition that under the provision in Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990  local planning authorities may revoke or modify permissions already granted when it was expedient to do so. One of the circumstances that had arisen with revocation and which was bound to arise because of this petition was that compensation would be payable to the landowners. If these permissions were revoked the compensation could potentially be in the region of £60 million and the Council did not have significant revenue sufficient for all or any of the sites which Officer’s estimated could potentially be awarded at £50k per plot.

 

            On this basis, Councillor Chapman confirmed that he commended the recommendations in the report.

 

            Member debate firstly focused upon Arun’s Local Plan and claims that it had been unsound when first submitted and that even after modification with the addition of new strategic locations (including the Pagham sites), it was alleged that the Local Plan when adopted by the Council following Examination was inherently unsound as the new sites were undeliverable. On the issue of revocation, it was claimed that the risk of missing housing targets and the risks of substantial compensation was overstated. It was felt that Full Council was not qualified to make quasi-judicial planning decisions and so the consideration of the petition should be referred to the Planning Committee.  A further potential reason for revocation was the need to consider Coastal Change Management Areas (CCMAs) which identified vulnerable locations, Pagham was one of these and it was felt that this should have been considered before outline planning decisions had been decided. 

 

            Reference was made to the Council’s Constitution in respect of the Petitions Scheme and Full Council debates. The Constitution stated that in considering a petition the Council could decide to take the action the petition was requesting; not to take the action; or to commission further investigation into the matter by a relevant Committee.  It was felt that this relevant Committee should be the Planning Committee.  The issue of compensated land values also required further debate and more detailed information supplied.

 

            Following further discussion, Councillor Dixon proposed that the petition be referred to the Planning Committee.  This was seconded by Councillor Coster.

 

            The Chair asked the Interim Monitoring Officer to provide advice.

 

            The Interim Monitoring Officer was asked to confirm if this amendment was a valid amendment to the original motion. He confirmed that the amendment was not a valid amendment. It was explained that in the Council’s Constitution, the Petition scheme was a standalone scheme and that the Constitution clearly defined how any debate was to be conducted. That section of the Constitution made no reference to motions.  The reason for Full Council debate under the Petitions Scheme to be standalone was to ensure that the issue in the petition be discussed and not avoided by procedural motions and other tactics. The 1500 petitioners had asked for the petition to be discussed at Full Council. They did not authorise the petition organiser to ask for or to be dealt with elsewhere or for their request for a discussion to be changed to something else.

 

            Debate then returned to the four recommendations outlined in the Officer’s report. This returned to the legal advice received and why this had not been sent to Members more in advance of the meeting.  Concerns were expressed over climate change siting why the development in Pagham was unsuitable. It was strongly stated that development to this scale was not wanted in Pagham.  Arguments put forward for revoking each of the applications were that the Section 106 agreements were drawn up between Officers and developers with Pagham stakeholders not being permitted to discuss them. Further it was alleged that the Environmental and infrastructure requirements were ignored in granting the permissions and there were drainage and sewage problems that had also been largely ignored in granting the permissions. It was said that these developments were allowing building on a flood plain which would eventually result in other issues that the Council would need to address.  Concerns were expressed over the likely compensation levels which the Council could not sustain.

 

 

            Members were reminded that the housing targets were not set by the Council, the Council only decided where within the District those houses should be located. If Councillors chose to revoke these permissions, it was pointed out that this would not remove those sites from the Council’s Local Plan.  Even if the permissions were revoked, other developers could submit applications for these sites.  Revocation did not delete these four sites as strategic allocations and so would not prevent any other applications coming forward.  The Council had also received clear advice that it could be looking at a compensation level of up to £60m, this had been backed-up by the legal advice submitted by a QC. Such a sum would either bankrupt the Council or would result in every household in the District having to pay a substantial increase in Council Tax. Revocation would also mean that the number of not delivered houses on the four sites would have to be relocated elsewhere in the District. 

 

                A  Point of Order was raised in relation to Part 5, Section 1, Council Procedure Rule 17.11 [Motions which may be moved during debate] (b) [to amend a Motion] where an explanation was sought from the Interim Monitoring Officer as to why this rule could not be applied.  The Chair repeated that this matter had been dealt with earlier in the meeting and he urged that Councillor from continuing to pursue this issue. The Interim Monitoring Officer stated that the petitioners had asked for the Council to give consideration to revocation of the planning permissions. This was happening now and there was no need to consider any alternative as the petitioner’s request was being met.

           

            A statement was made that the Council’s Local Plan had only become sound by accepting the inspector’s modifications.  The Director of Place was again requested to look up Planning Inspector R J Jackson’s comments that appeared to say that the Pagham sites were undeliverable. 

 

            Councillor Bower, as seconder of the motion, responded to some of the points that had been made during the debate.  On the issue of land values, he confirmed that this was irrelevant to planning applications and planning considerations.  If the Council were to agree to the Petition request, it would open the flood gates whereby any planning application approved by this Council could be petitioned against at any time. This would cause chaos as far as development in Arun was concerned and would destroy what the Council had in place in terms of its 5 year land supply.

 

            Councillor Chapman, as proposer of the motion, stated that wishes of all who had signed the petition had been met as Full Council had now debated the petition request. Reflecting on the legal advice provided and the lateness of it, he confirmed that he had been pleased to have received it as it had provided support for the advice given by the Council’s internal legal service and supported the Director of Place’s report, which had been found to be sound.  Based upon these facts, Councillor Chapman urged Councillors to think very carefully about the issue to revoke or not.

 

            Following a request made earlier in the debate, the Director of Place read out Paragraphs 48 and 49 of T J Jackson’s Appeal decision and explained that its citation was out of context and did not support the case for revocation or modification of the permissions.

 

            A request had been made that the voting on the four recommendations be recorded.

 

            Those voting for were Councillors Bicknell, Bower, Caffyn, Chace, Chapman, Charles, Clayden, Mrs Cooper, Cooper, Dendle, Edwards, Elkins, Mrs English, English, Goodheart, Gunner, Hughes, Kelly, Madeley, Oliver-Redgate, Pendleton and Roberts (22).  Councillor Huntley voted against the recommendations.  Those abstaining were Councillors Bennett, Blanchard-Cooper, Brooks, Buckland, Catterson, Coster, Daniells, Dixon, Gregory, Hamilton, Haywood, Lury, Needs, Oppler, Seex, Smith, Staniforth, Stanley, Tilbrook, Thurston, Walsh, Warr, Worne and Yeates (24).

 

            The recommendations were therefore declared CARRIED.

 

            The Council

 

                        RESOLVED

 

(1)          Not to consider further the revocation of planning permission P/25/17/OUT as it doesn’t appear to the local planning authority that it is expedient to revoke or modify this permission to develop land;

 

(2)          Not to consider further the revocation of planning permission P/140/16/OUT as it doesn’t appear to the local planning authority that it is expedient to revoke or modify this permission to develop land;

 

(3)          Not to consider further the revocation of planning permission P/134/16/OUT as it doesn’t appear to the local planning authority that it is expedient to revoke or modify this permission to develop land; and

 

(4)          Not to consider further the revocation of planning permission P/30/19/OUT as it doesn’t appear to the local planning authority that it is expedient to revoke or modify this permission to develop land.