Reconvened Pagham housing meeting to discuss two major developments

A 'totem pole of defiance' in Pagham
A 'totem pole of defiance' in Pagham

Plans for 580 new homes in Pagham are set to be debated next week after a planning meeting was suspended last month before a decision could be made.

Arun District Council’ development control committee approved up to 400 homes on land west of Pagham Road and south of Summer Lane.

A 'totem pole of defiance' in Pagham

A 'totem pole of defiance' in Pagham

At the same meeting councillors then discussed a second application for 300 homes on land north of Hook Lane.

The majority of committee members went against an officers’ recommendation to approve the scheme and instead backed refusal but then could not agree a sound planning reason to do so.

A vote on deferral was then taken but this was also lost.

At this point the committee chairman suspended the meeting.

A reconvened development control committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday.

The meeting will begin from the point of the adjournment.

The committee can either propose refusal with clear reasons or defer the application to a future meeting to enable a further officers’ report to be produced covering the issues raised by members.

A third application for 280 homes north of Sefter Road would then be debated.

After October’s meeting a ‘totem pole of defiance’, opposing the scale of housebuilding proposed for the village was erected overlooking fields next to Pagham Harbour.

After October’s meeting residents raised questions about the capacity of Arun to webcast meetings so residents can watch them live online if they are not able to attend in person.

A spokesman for Arun said: “Arun District Council can confirm that the webcasting system is currently with the manufacturer for a technical upgrade.”

The council’s policy says due to the resources needed webcasting ‘will only take place where a meeting is deemed to be of particular and widespread interest and normally where the council is aware that the public gallery is unlikely to accommodate all of the members of the public who would like observe the meeting’.