130 homes at Land North of Summer Lane, Pagham

The site and surroundings

The site covered 8.01 hectares north of Summer Lane, near Mill Farm, Summer Fields, public footpaths, farmland and a wastewater treatment works.

“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 consultees said

Highways and drainage consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while education and Southern Water raised concerns about schools, sewer capacity and odour.

“Separately, raised concerns about the development within a 500m odour buffer area from the WwTW. Requested that no houses be placed within this buffer area. Following an assessment of the odour assessment submitted with this application Southern Water state that they will object to any proposed Development within the 1.5 Odour Unit contour of an existing WwTW. The report shows C98, 1-hour 3 ouE/m3 which does not meet their criteria.”

“SOUTHERN WATER - it is not possible to use planning conditions to protect sewers as Southern Water have their own powers to protect their assets. Southern Water have been advised of the findings of the Council's independent Odour Review. They may then wish to maintain their objection, but the Local Planning Authority (LPA) is content that there will be no harm to the operation of the WwTW from the siting of these dwellings.”

Officer report

What people said

The parish council, 133 objectors and an ornithological society cited countryside development, flooding, traffic, infrastructure, wildlife, agricultural land and wastewater concerns.

“- This is residential development in the countryside and so not in accordance with the Development Plan. - The proposed introduction of a crossover and additional vehicles will compromise the character of Summer Lane as a Public Right of Way. - Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land. - Insufficient details regarding preventing vehicles turning onto Summer Lane from the site or from the site to the south.”

“- Departure from the development plan. - Conflict with the Pagham Neighbourhood Plan. - Pagham has already had enough development. - Pagham has already had more than 1300 properties agreed. - Pagham has seen a 43% increase in households compared to December 2022. - Pagham was a medieval village and is becoming a town. - Must build on brownfield land first. - Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land. - No demand as not all plots on existing sites have been sold.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Four speakers represented the parish council, objectors, the applicant and the ward member.

Members’ concerns

Members focused on additional homes, land raising, displaced floodwater, the countryside location, the failed sequential test and uncertainty about wastewater odour.

“One Member stated that the addition of a further ten dwellings, together with the proposed raising of land levels, increased concerns that floodwater could be displaced elsewhere. On that basis, the Member advised that they could not support the application.”

“One member revisited concerns regarding odour impacts from the nearby wastewater treatment works. Referring to Southern Water's continuing objection, the Member questioned the reliability of the odour assessments and predictive modelling that had informed the officer assessment, expressing concern that any problems would only become apparent after occupation of the development. The Member stated that they did not believe sufficient certainty existed to support the proposal.”

Minutes

How members voted

The officer recommendation to approve was unanimously lost, and a motion to refuse was unanimously carried.

“As there were no further comments, the Chair moved the officer recommendation to approve the application, subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 Agreement. Upon being put to the vote, no Members voted in favour and the recommendation was therefore lost unanimously.”

“The motion to refuse planning permission was carried unanimously.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused the application because it failed the sequential flood-risk test, relied on land raising and lacked a signed 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