Issue - decisions

P/58/19/PL Previously considered application for further information Rear of Inglenook Hotel, 253-255 Pagham Road, Pagham

12/03/2020 - P/58/19/PL Previously considered application for further information Rear of Inglenook Hotel, 253-255 Pagham Road, Pagham

            (Councillor Huntley spoke to this application in his capacity as Ward Member.)

 

            P/58/19/PL – Erection of 9 No. dwellings with associated access, parking, cycle & refuse storage & landscape design.  This application is a Departure from the Development Plan & may affect the setting of a listed building, Rear of Inglenook Hotel, 253-255 Pagham Road, Pagham

 

            This application had been deferred from the meeting held on 6 November 2019 as Members had requested that an independent assessment be undertaken of the highway impacts of the proposals for all highways users, to include consideration of safety issues for all users.

 

            The report on the table presented the conclusions of the Independent Highway Assessment & Road Safety Audit (RSA), which, in summary stated that the application should not be refused as the likely impacts would not be sufficient to justify refusal.  However, a series of recommendations for improvements were proposed and a number of key issues highlighted that should be addressed.  The report also detailed responses from the applicant,  County Highways and the Parish Council, together with additional letters of objections and the officer’s response.  In order to secure the improvements suggested, relevant conditions had been amended/added as detailed in the report.   In addition, the applicant had proposed an alternative footpath around the back of the public house to be accessed by a security code.

 

            The Principal Planning Officer also directed Members to the written report update that had been circulated at the meeting which detailed the following :-

 

·         additional advice received from the Council’s independent highway consultant regarding measurements taken of the access road and a summary of the risks to certain groups of people using the access

·         response (e) to Further Local Resident Objections which had been omitted from the report in the agenda

·         additional local resident objections and relevant officer reponses

·         additional Informative following advice from West Sussex County Council Fire & Rescue relating to the installation of a fire hydrant within the site

·         additional condition relating to the securing of lighting of the alternative footpath route

·         additional condition relating to the securing of lighting to improve the safety of the access road

 

The Council’s Independent Highways Consultant was in attendance at the meeting and provided a presentation of his findings.  An officer from County Highways also advised the meeting of the issues that were pertinent to their consideration of the matter.

 

In inviting discussion on the matter, the Chairman reminded the Committee to restrict their comments to the access to the site as that was the only issue on which Members had requested further information be brought back for consideration. 

 

            Members participated in a full debate and continued to express serious reservations regarding the safety of all users with regard to the shared access for both pedestrians and vehicles.  Refuse lorries and larger delivery vehicles using the access were of particular concern as there was not a clear sight line due to bends in the road.  Views were expressed that the access to and egress from the access could be problematic on occasion due to the parking on Pagham Road and the location of the nearby bus stop.  It was felt that the mitigation measures that were being proposed were not adequate to ensure the safety of all users.

 

            Member comment was made that the proposal was a justified use of the land but that the access was unacceptable.  It was suggested that the developer should negotiate the use of a ransom strip to improve the situation and advice was given that officers had recommended the developer have conversations with the relevant party to that effect.

 

            The Committee centred some discussion around the measurements of the access for both vehicles and pedestrians, which was felt to not be wide enough.  In addition, the shared surface could lead to people believing they could walk along its length in safety but, with the blind bend, that might not necessarily be the case.  A further view was expressed that there was a real potential for crime and that should be designed out of the development.

 

            The Principal Planning Officer and  the County Highways Officer reiterated that no evidence had been presented by way of the RSA to support a refusal of the application on safety grounds

 

In the course of debate, matters were raised relating to the location of the static caravans; Manual for Streets; gated access and requirement for key pad; and potential for the general public to use the footpath rather than just residents of the development.  These points were addressed by officers at the meeting.

 

The Group Head of Planning reiterated, as advised at the previous meeting, that the proposals were not ideal but County Highways and an independent traffic consultant had provided advice with regard to the safety of the access and both had concluded that it was not so unsafe as to refuse planning permission.  In terms of the existing use, the assessment was not against its current use but was against how it could be used without the benefit of planning permission.  A number of comments had been made that the access was not as safe as it could be – that was not a test in planning terms, rather, the correct test was to assess whether the access was so unsafe as to refuse the application.

 

In turning to the vote, the Committee did not accept the officer recommendation to approve and, as indicated by the debate, discussed reasons for refusal.  The Committee then

 

RESOLVED

 

That the application be refused for the following reason:-

 

The proposals will introduce a form of development that will result is significant conflicts between highways users to the detriment of highway safety. It will result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety, not result in pedestrian priority or a safe and secure development contrary to policies T SP1, D DM1 and Q SP1 of the Arun Local Plan and polices within the NPPF.