Six dwellings at 255 Pagham Road, Pagham

Earlier application

An earlier application for the same six dwellings was refused because drainage information did not demonstrate that flood risk would be acceptable.

“P/43/25/PLDemolition of existing storage buildings and the erection of 6 No dwellings and associated works. This application affects the setting of listed buildings, is a Departure from Refused 21-11-25 P/56/26/PL”

“Application P/43/25/PL was refused for one reason. The Local Planning Authority was not satisfied that sufficient information had been provided to demonstrate that an acceptable surface water drainage scheme could be secured and operated effectively. Consequently, it had not been established that the development would not increase flood risk on the site and surrounding area. REPRESENTATIONS Pagham Parish Council (PPC) - Objection:”

Officer report

What officers advised

Officers recommended approval because the site fitted the surrounding development, provided six homes, and the drainage conflict would not increase flooding elsewhere.

“PLANNING BALANCE The site lies outside the Built-Up Area Boundary. The principle of development falls to be considered against the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in Section 11 of the NPPF. Although the site is within an area at risk of flooding, the identified conflict is technical in nature and does not preclude the application of the tilted balance.”

“Notwithstanding this shortfall, sufficient evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the discharge location has adequate capacity to accommodate the development's surface water runoff. A reduced discharge rate has been agreed with ADC Engineers, and it has been concluded the development would not result in an increased risk of flooding either on-site or elsewhere.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Highways, ecology, environmental health and conservation officers raised no objection subject to conditions, while drainage officers identified a technical objection.

“Comments raised in the representations are addressed below. Concerns regarding the use of the access from Platinum Gardens and legal ownership is not a material consideration for planning, as ownership remains a private matter. For the purposes of due diligence, it has been clarified in the Planning Statement that the applicant has full legal access. CONSULTATIONS CONSULTATION RESPONSES RECEIVED: ADC ECOLOGY: No objection subject to conditions.”

“ADC DRAINAGE ENGINEERS: Objection but with conditions suggested. -The runoff strategy is acceptable, with water reuse considered first, infiltration shown to be unfeasible, and discharge to the public surface water sewer identified as the most sustainable alternative.”

Officer report

Objections and concerns

The parish council and nearby occupiers objected over access, drainage, flooding, privacy, noise, trees, biodiversity, heritage, traffic, parking and infrastructure.

“- Encouraged by addition of green roofs and other measures to improve drainage. However, the requisite standards have still not been met. Concerns raised that green roof could be converted at a later date. - No agreement regarding accessing site via Platinum Gardens (private road) had been reached. - Proposes to use the surface water drainage facility from Platinum Gardens.”

“- Harm to neighbouring amenity from impact to privacy and noise pollution and odour. - Harm to trees, wildlife and biodiversity. Threat to TPO trees. - Platinum Gardens is a privately owned road funded by/maintained by properties on the estate. No consultation has been had with residents to use this road, and no permission has been granted by owners. Legal implications are queried. - Sharp right hand turn into Platinum Gardens is dangerous/difficult to manoeuvre.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Four speakers addressed the Committee: a parish council representative, an objector, the agent and the ward member.

What members discussed

Members discussed the proposed access, possible use of the hotel access, flooding, sea-level rise, safe refuge and finished floor levels.

“Councillor Hamilton raised concerns regarding the site's elevation above sea level and the potential implications of future sea level rise and flooding. She referred to flood risk information produced by Climate Central and questioned whether such data could be taken into account when assessing planning applications.”

“Councillor Wallsgrove sought clarification regarding the proposed finished floor levels and whether they were comparable to those of surrounding properties. The Senior Planning Officer advised that she did not have that specific information available but noted that the site was relatively level and that surrounding development would have incorporated its own flood mitigation measures.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The Committee voted to approve the application conditionally, subject to a Section 106 agreement.

“As there were no further questions or comments, the Chair put the officer recommendation to the vote.”

“The application be APPROVED CONDITIONALLY SUBJECT TO A S106 AGREEMENT.”

Minutes