Agenda item

The Group Head of Planning presented the report, where he outlined that there was a need for members to consider the additional wording that had been detailed in the report in order to strengthen their refusal reasoning for the application in order to ensure the decision of the committee could be defended should the applicant appeal the decision of the committee.

          Members were in agreement with the proposed changes detailed within the report. There was a request from one member to split the vote out due to the member participating in this meeting as substitute and having not attended the original meeting where the decision had originally been made. Advice was then sought from the Legal Services Manager regarding the vote, where it was advised that anyone acting as a substitute at the meeting could abstain. Discussion on this matter continued as there was contention in relation to advice received therefore a 10-minute adjournment was agreed and taken at 16:05.

          The meeting was readjourned at 16:20, where the Chair explained that members were now clear on the advice that had been given and were now ready to move to the vote on the item.

          The recommendations were proposed by Councillor McDougall and seconded by Councillor Lury. The vote was taken in three parts as requested with recommendations (i), being voted on first, then recommendation (ii), and finally recommendation (iii).

          The Committee

                     RESOLVED

2.1 That Planning Committee confirm the following by way of clarification in respect of the decision made on Y/52/23/PL.

i. Reasons for refusal 1 & 2 are withdrawn.

ii. Reason for refusal 3 is withdrawn.

iii. Reason 4 should have read.

The design of the proposed houses would be incongruous with the established character of this semi-rural edge of settlement location which forms a buffer to the hamlet of Bilsham. They would introduce an urban built form to the edge of settlement location and not reflect the establish character of the area. This would result in substantial harm to local character in conflict with Arun Local Plan policies D DM1 & LAN DM1, and policy H4 of the Yapton Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2031. The harm identified clearly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the application including its contribution to the Councils Housing Land Supply shortfall.

iv. Additional reasons for refusal should have included 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.

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.

In the absence of a signed Section 106 agreement, the development will not provide the contribution required to mitigate the additional cost of transporting to secondary school pupils to the nearest school and is thereby contrary to ALP policy INF SP1 and the NPPF.