Agenda item

(This application was deferred by the Committee on 13 December 2023 [Minute 466] due to the deferral of application P/153/21/RES [Minute 465], as the proposed access for this application relied on a connection to the internal estate road provided on the adjacent application site.)

6 Public Speakers

Councillor Peter Atkins, Pagham Parish Council

Nigel Munday, Objector.

Colin Hamilton, Objector

Councillor David Huntley, Ward Member

Chris Lyons, Agent

Approval of reserved matters following P/25/17/OUT for the provision of 65 dwellings, access roads, landscaping, open space and associated works. This application affects a Public Right of Way.

The Principal Planning Officer presented the report.  An update was provided that one further objection had been received that had contained no additional material considerations to consider.  She drew attention to a correction to page 17 of the update report and advised that the ridge heights specified of ‘…between 5.3m and 8.3m.’ should read ‘…between 4.3m and 8.4m’.

          After the speakers had been heard the Principal Planning Officer was invited by the Chair to address any comments made by those who had spoken.  Conditions were imposed on the outline to deal with any flooding concerns, with the council’s drainage engineers requiring surface water run off rates to be no more than the greenfield runoff rate.  The drainage engineers would require details of further drainage solutions if the runoff rates were unsatisfactory, in order to address capacity and run off issues.  Whilst indicative details had been received concerning the provision of play areas, they were not part of the reserved matters and would be secured as part of the Section 106 agreement.  The Greenspace Officer had no objection to the proposals for the play areas.  Condition 16 (external lighting) would deal with on-site external lighting. The ecological assessment had addressed the presence of birds and reviewed by the council’s ecologist who had no objections.  A condition requesting details of the bird box provision would be secured at the discharge of condition stage with the number of bird boxes quoted was the minimum requirement. Condition 27 (and Condition 30 of P/153/21/RES), required more details to be submitted relating to mitigation land for the Brent Geese and was not part of members’ consideration. The mitigation measures relating to the reserved matters involving reducing disturbance of the brent geese had gone through an Appropriate Assessment by the council and agreed with Natural England. Referring to the potential for bird nests, separate legislation was in place to protect birds and their nesting habitats.

Members raised the following points during the debate.  Flood risk concerns were discussed and the importance of adequate drainage solutions being in place to prevent future flooding.  The provision of bungalows was welcomed with clarification sought regarding their protection as bungalows.  The importance of protection being in place for migrating brent geese to mitigate the effect of the development.

The Principal Planning Officer advised that with regards to the flood risk concerns raised, a surface water drainage scheme would be considered at a later stage, prior to commencement of the development. A planning condition existed on the outline planning permission and would require the applicant to submit a technical drainage scheme and calculations for approval by the drainage engineers. If changes were required that impacted the approved layout, then the reserved matters application would be required to be altered and a new application would be needed to be made.  Turning to the bungalows, it was confirmed they would be one storey high and not chalet bungalows.  As regards to their protection, there would not be any permitted development rights allowing an upwards extension.  The protection for migrating brent geese would be secured as part of the reserved matters application. 

The Group Head of Planning reminded members that, as a reserved matters application, the only matters for consideration on this application were access, layout, appearance, landscaping and scale.  All other detailed matters, including drainage, had been considered at the outline application stage through the conditions attached to the outline planning permission, as set out in the report. Further details concerning drainage would be required to be submitted for approval at the discharge of condition stage.   Until these details were received the drainage engineers had submitted a holding objection.

At the conclusion of the member discussion Councillor Bower proposed that in light of the concerns raised by members concerning drainage issues the discharge of conditions applications relating to drainage should be referred back to this Committee for approval.  The proposal was seconded by Councillor Kelly.

The Committee

          RESOLVED

          That the application be APPROVE CONDITIONALLY and the discharge of the drainage conditions be referred back to the Planning Committee for approval.