Yapton crematorium plans - ‘Irrational and unreasonable’ refusal is appealed

A fear of traffic accidents prompted Arun District Council, in October, to refuse the application at 10 Acre Field, north of Grevatts Lane, Yapton.

The appeal, launched last week by the planning agent, claimed the council ‘failed to make the correct assessment’ of the application.

The statement of case added: “The refusal of the application was entirely irrational and unreasonable.

“The committee had not properly evidenced their reason for refusal, they failed to consider the mitigation proposed and they based their refusal on conjecture and their own assessment about the nature of the highway danger that would result from the proposal.”

The appeal statement claimed the committee ‘took no account’ of the ‘significant benefits’.

The agent said the proposal would serve the infrastructure and social needs met by the proposal in reducing waiting times and stress ‘caused by delays for cremations’ where local alternative facilities were ‘running significantly above capacity’.

An audit report by the district council raised five safety points, the first of which was the likelihood of accidents as vehicles tried to turn off the main road into Grevatts Lane West where the crematorium was to be built.

A report to a committee meeting in October said: “It may not be evident to other vehicles why some vehicles, particularly eastbound, are slowing to turn left into Grevatts Lane West.

“This could result in rear end shunt collisions on the main road.”

While the audit recommended signage could be put up to let drivers know the turning was approaching, members were not convinced it would be enough.

With concerns also being raised that no ‘slowing down lane’ had been included in the application, allowing vehicles to make the turn without affecting the rest of the traffic, they voted to refuse the application.

The agent argued that the determination of the application by the development control committee ‘failed to consider the overall planning balance and primacy’ of the development plan.

“The committee incorrectly considered the issue of highway safety as a material consideration in the determination of the application, despite the fact that there were no evidence to support this,” they added.