6 Public Speakers
Cllr Sue Wallsgrove – Barnham & Eastergate Parish Council
Michael Lowe – Objector
Mike Palmer – Objector
Andrew Munton – Applicant
Lorna O’Carroll - Agent
Outline application with all matters reserved, apart from access, for up to 69 No. dwellings with access, parking, landscaping & associated works. This application is a Departure from the Development Plan.
The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates. This was followed by 6 Public Speakers.
Before opening the debate, the Chair quoted from the Local Government Association’s 2019 version of ‘Probity in Planning [page 20]:
‘All applications that are clearly contrary to the development plan must be advertised as such, and are known as ‘departures’ from the development plan. If it is intended to approve such an application, the material considerations leading to this conclusion must be clearly identified, and how these considerations justify overriding the development plan must be clearly demonstrated.
The application may then have to be referred to the relevant secretary of state, and/or the Mayor [not applicable to Arun], depending upon the type and scale of the development proposed (Section 77 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990). If the officers’ report recommends approval of such a departure, the justification for this should be included, in full, in that report.’
Members then took part in a full debate on the application where a number of points were raised and responded to by Officers, including:
· endorsement for the points made by the representatives of the Parish Councils and residents
· concerns over the location and its relationship with the adjoining development to the east, and whether taken together they now amounted to too much development in the location
· the traffic implications from the development and the
· the A27 at Fontwell becoming a local rat run
· the need for proper visualisation of the traffic impacts
· the slightly higher energy savings were positively noted
· the lack train station and the cost of bus travel that would not be significantly mitigated by the proposed inclusion of travel plan vouchers for some residents
· the NPPF at paragraph 112a - approved developments having ‘
· endorsement for the comments about the wildlife surveys and the needs of the community in planning
· sustainability being the only grounds upon which the application could be refused
· disagreement that the site and location were sustainable and that car use would be necessary
· the economic, social and environmental considerations of sustainability – few local benefits no real economic benefit,
That the application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY as detailed in the report and report update subject to the conditions and conditions update as detailed and a Section 106 Agreement.
As the Section 106 Agreement has not yet taken place, the final decision be delegated to the Group Head of Planning with authority to make minor amendments to the Section 106 Agreement. Should the Section 106 Agreement not be completed in 4 months of the date of the Planning Committee’s resolution to grant planning permission, then the application shall be refused for the following reasons:
1. In the absence of a signed Section 106 Agreement, the development fails to make any affordable housing provision and is thereby contrary to the aims and objectives of the NPPF and policy AH SP2 of the Arun Local Plan.
2. In the absence of a signed Section 106 Agreement, the development will not provide the highway improvements necessary to deliver the development & mitigate any residual harm to the local and strategic road network and is thereby contrary to ALP policies T SP1, T DM1 and the NPPF.