Agenda item

4 Public Speakers

Councillor Peter Atkins, Pagham Parish Council

James Weston, Objector

Jon Gateley, Agent

Councillor David Huntley, Ward Member

Approval of reserved matters (appearance, layout, landscaping and scale) following outline planning Permission P/140/16/OUT for the erection of 350 No. dwellings, together with public open space, play space, drainage, parking and associated infrastructure, landscape, ancillary and site preparation works, with access off Pagham Road. This site may affect a Public Right of Way.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report with updates that detailed a number of minor changes that had been made to the layout and landscaping details in accordance with comments received by West Sussex County Highways.

After public speakers had been heard the Principal Planning Officer was invited by the Chair to address any comments made by those who had spoken, where it was confirmed that drainage controls and mitigations were still needed to be known at this stage. The Strategic Development Team Leader confirmed that the design of the main spine road had been agreed as acceptable access for the Primary School and in addressing the comments made in relation to animals being able to go through the dry SUDS features and out onto the agricultural fields to disturb the Brent Geese habitat the officer confirmed that these had been discussed in detail, however this matter was not material to the consideration of a reserved matters application.

Members raised the following points during debate, the application was stated not to be in keeping with the Pagham Design statement, the location of the site was in flood zone one, concerns regarding the height of the development so as not to dwarf the Church and the views that were currently available. It was noted that the developers had made some changes however, they were not deemed to be enough. Flooding concerns were discussed in detail where it was confirmed that the council’s drainage engineers would require additional information at the next stage (through a discharge of condition application), however at the outline stage of the application the details they had were deemed satisfactory. It was also confirmed that the developers would require a drainage design to be approved before any building commenced for the development. In addressing the concern that no mitigation land had been provided it was stated that this had been identified through the S106 agreement, however the developer would need to submit evidence in order to address the matter. It was also acknowledged that that whilst the Brent Geese mitigation site chosen did flood, it was the developer’s responsibility to address and resolve these concerns ahead of commencing. Officers confirmed that they would require evidence showing the site could be sufficiently drained and that reassurance and a deliverability plan needed to be provided to ensure it met the requirements.

          The discussion then returned to the concerns raised regarding the height of the buildings where it was asked if officers could confirm they had been reduced as had been requested during the consultation stages and by how much they had been reduced. It was confirmed that this information would need to be provided outside of the meeting given the number of individual house types and variations in height, however specifically relating to the listed buildings to the south of the development the outline permissions were assessed that that the harm identified was less than substantial. The Principal Planning Officer explained that this application dealt with the specific harm identified and ensures that any harm established was then dealt with at outline stage. It was confirmed that for this application the harm established had not exceeded the initial assessment. Members continued to debate this matter before putting the officer recommendation to the vote.

          The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Wallsgrove and seconded by Councillor Northeast, upon the vote being taken the recommendation was not approved.

          Members then turned to discussing reasons for refusal specifically relating to not knowing the specific height of the buildings within the development. Councillor Lury then proposed that the application be DEFERED until the impact of the height of the buildings could be confirmed. This was seconded by Councillor McDougal.

           As members continued their debate on the deferral reason, it was also suggested that additional reasons for deferral be added to the proposal, these were drainage concerns and the lack of additional infrastructure in place to prevent future flooding and further mitigations needed in relation to the Brent Geese. The Group Head of Planning provided strong advice to members that these were already addressed by planning conditions imposed on the outline and therefore were not required to be specifically outlined in their deferral reasoning.  

          The Committee

                     RESOLVED

That the application be DEFERRED until the clarification of the impact of the height of the buildings on the St Thomas a Becket Church could be understood.

          Those voting FOR were Councillors Blanchard-Cooper, Hamilton, Long, Lury, McDougall, Northeast and Wallsgrove. No Councillors voted AGAINST. Those voting to ABSTAIN were Councillors Bicknell, Kelly, Partridge and Patel.

Due to the decision to defer this application it was suggested by the Group Head of Planning that a short adjournment was taken to allow officers to speak with the applicant as the next application was inextricably linked to this application. Members agreed and the meeting was adjourned at 15:20.