Gravel parking area and fence at Barton Close, Pagham

The site and surroundings

The land lies between The Lamb Inn’s car park and homes, and previously contained vegetation beside Nyetimber Forge.

“DESCRIPTION OF APPLICATIONPart retrospective application for the extension and retention of resurfacing works. The applicant proposes to use the area as parking for residents/visitors of Nyetimber Forge. Fencing/landscaping works are proposed. SITE CHARACTERISTICSThe land previously comprised vegetation and is between a car park serving The Lamb Inn and dwellings on Barton Close. CHARACTER OF LOCALITYResidential with The Lamb to the south west. RELEVANT SITE HISTORY”

Officer report

Earlier application

An earlier application was withdrawn after land ownership concerns, and the revised plan excluded disputed land.

“P/165/25/PLReplacement of muddy grass surface with fully permeable gravel, retention of natural drainage (no membranes or grid systems used), installation of cleft post-and-rail fencing with laurel hedge planting at the frontage and installation of replacement 1.8m wooden boundary fencing to the remaining sides for screening and security. This application affects the setting of listed buildings and is in CIL Zone 4 (Zero Rated) as other development. Withdrawn 27-04-26”

“P/165/25/PL was withdrawn following land ownership concerns. There is an ongoing dispute with regards to land ownership. The applicant submitted a revised location plan with the current application which removes the land that was in dispute. REPRESENTATIONS Pagham Parish Council - No objection.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended conditional approval because the proposal complied with relevant policies and would not cause demonstrable harm to visual, residential or highway amenity.

“The proposal complies with relevant Development Plan policies in that it would not result in demonstrable harm to visual amenity or residential amenity.”

Officer report

Main planning effects

Officers considered the gravel, fencing and planting acceptable for the street scene, drainage, listed building setting, neighbouring amenity and parking.

“The site is adjacent to the overflow carpark serving The Lamb Inn which has the same fencing denoting the front boundary adjacent to the highway. Gravel is an appropriate material to formalise the parking arrangement opposite Nyetimber Forge, a Grade II Listed Building.”

“Given the use of similar fencing in close proximity of the site, the inclusion of hedging in the proposal and character of the wider street scenes with driveways serving the dwellings, the works, once completed, would not result in harm to the character or visual amenity of the street scene and are in accordance with Arun Local Plan (ALP) policy D DM1.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The speakers were the applicant, an objector and the ward member.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed drainage, ownership, private parking, vegetation and whether additional native planting could be secured and maintained.

“Photographs of the site were shown to Members, including views of the existing fencing, landscaping and the reinstated grass verge. Members were advised that further native hedgerow planting was proposed to provide additional screening of the site.”

“In response to the points raised by public speakers, the Minor Applications Lead Officer advised that issues relating to land ownership had also been raised as part of the previously withdrawn application. The current application had been submitted with a revised red line boundary, which the applicant had confirmed reflected land within their ownership.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application conditionally after the recommendation was proposed and seconded.

“The recommendation was proposed by Councillor Tandy and seconded by Councillor Woodman.”

“A Member referred to information received regarding land ownership and sought clarification as to whether officers had considered any recent Land Registry information. The Planning Officer advised that land ownership was not a planning matter and that the application had been assessed on the basis of the information submitted.”

Minutes