120 homes at Land North of Summer Lane, Pagham

What was proposed

Outline permission was sought for up to 120 homes, with access from Summer Lane and through approved development to the south.

“The other (up to) 70 homes will be accessed from the approved site (P/15/24/OUT) to the south of Summer Lane which in turn is linked to an estate road on the adjacent site to the east (approved by P/140/16/OUT).”

“The arrangements include bollards positioned to prevent vehicles turning left or right onto Summer Lane and to prevent vehicles turning off Summer Lane onto the access road heading north or south. Signage will also be placed on Summer Lane to ensure drivers know there is no access to the site other than via the access junction after Jennings Close, in order to deter drivers from trying to access the site via the new Summer Lane crossing.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is mainly arable and scrubland in a rural area beside existing homes, approved development, a wastewater treatment works and public footpaths.

“BOUNDARY TREATMENTThe boundaries are all open save for a solid retaining timber fence structure to Mill Farm and knee rail fencing to the edge of the Summer Fields development. SITE CHARACTERISTICSThe site has two distinct areas. The main site area is part of an existing arable field located west of Mill Farm/west of PRoW ref PAG/108/2. This is currently part of a much larger field extending west and north-west towards the edge of the Pagham Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW).”

“The second area is presently scrubland and sits between the Summer Fields development on the east side, Mill Farm to the North and Summer Lane to the south. It is also much lower in topography. Summer Lane marks the southern boundary and is a public footpath as well as vehicular access to Furzefield Barn, the Pagham WwTW and other farmland. Another footpath runs north/south through the site linking Summer Lane with a pedestrian entrance to Mill Farm.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because housing, affordable housing, economic and biodiversity benefits outweighed identified policy conflicts and other adverse impacts.

“Therefore, it would be appropriate in this case to allocate significant weight to the contribution to the housing shortfall. In addition, in that same appeal, the Inspector afforded significant weight to the delivery of affordable housing and moderate weight to the economic benefits and biodiversity net gain. The over- provision of POS should also be given moderate weight.”

“On balance therefore, the adverse impacts identified do not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits and there is no conflict with the other policy areas listed within para 11(d) of the NPPF.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The speakers were a parish council representative, an objector, the agent and the ward member.

What members debated

Members debated flood risk, drainage, infrastructure, education, odour, countryside development, agricultural land and wildlife impacts.

“Several Members considered that the proposal represented urban encroachment into the countryside, lay outside the Built-Up Area Boundary and conflicted with the development plan. Concerns were also expressed regarding the loss of agricultural land, pressures on local infrastructure, flood risk and the potential impact on wildlife associated with Pagham Harbour.”

“Addressing flood risk concerns, the Principal Planning Officer acknowledged Members' comments regarding the characteristics of the site and surrounding area. However, he advised that neither the Environment Agency nor West Sussex County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, had objected to the proposal.”

Minutes

The vote

The officer recommendation for approval was lost, and the proposed refusal reasons were then carried unanimously by recorded vote.

“The Chair subsequently moved the officer recommendation for approval. Upon being put to the vote, the recommendation to grant planning permission was lost.”

“Following the defeat of the officer recommendation, officers adjourned briefly to assist Members in formulating defensible reasons for refusal. Upon reconvening, the Group Head of Planning advised that officers had been able to draft a reason for refusal based on the site's failure of the sequential flood risk test and the reliance on land raising to mitigate flood risk.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee refused permission because the scheme failed the sequential test, relied on land raising for future flood risk and lacked a completed Section 106 agreement.

“The reasons for refusal were then put to a recorded vote and were carried unanimously. The Committee therefore resolved to refuse planning permission on the grounds of flood risk and the absence of a completed Section 106 Agreement.”

“The application fails to pass the sequential test and proposes land raising to mitigate future flood risk on the site. Therefore, the proposal will be contrary to Arun Local Plan Policy W DM2 and the NPPF. The impacts will be significant and outweigh the benefits of the scheme. 2.”

Minutes