New access and extra bedrooms approved for Pagham development

Nine homes to the rear of the Inglenook Hotel and Restaurant, Pagham Road, were originally turned down in March 2020 but later won on appeal and are now under construction.

But Future Group Development now wants to see the site accessed from Spinnaker View.

A separate application asked for permission to increase the height of some of the homes, adding extra bedrooms and en-suites.

Some 34 objections were received citing highway safety concerns, impact on parking in the area, and a loss of biodiversity and privacy. 

Nearby residents were unhappy with the original access arrangements and say the narrow lane is unsuitable for construction traffic.

However they say they won’t give access to Spinnaker View, which is home to a private drive and development.

The council’s planning officers explained that: “It’s not necessary to own land to make a planning application provided notice is served on the landowner.

“But the planning permission cannot be implemented without the approval of that landowner.”

They said the loss of a landscaping ‘strip’ was ‘unfortunate’ but harm would be outweighed by the benefits of new access.

Pagham councillor June Hamilton (Ind) said the application was ‘unfair on local residents’ who had ‘spent huge sums of money on legal fees to protect their quiet enjoyment of that cul de sac’.

But an agent for the developer said the route ‘is entirely safe’ and ‘fully supported’ by the highways authority West Sussex County Council.

“Neighbouring residents have queried the legal right to access via Spinnaker View,” the agent said, “But the applicant is confident they have secured legal access via this route.”

David Edwards (Con, Felpham East) said he felt ‘hamstrung’ by the application.

“We spent many hours discussing the access for this particular application,” he said.

“We pretty well unanimously decided it was too dangerous and we lost on appeal.

“I am genuinely astonished that the developer is now asking us to approve exactly what we asked them to do in the first place – it’s beyond belief.”

The committee later heard that the appeal cost the council £32,690.

Hugh Coster (Ind, Aldwick East) called this ‘gaming the system’.

Pagham Parish Council objected to the new roof accommodation which it said would cause overlooking and threaten the privacy of residents.

One local resident, who objected to the plans, said the taller roof trusses had already been installed – before permission had been given.

This caused Billy Blanchard-Cooper (LDem, Brookfield) to ask: “Why has a stop notice not been issued?”

Planning officers said: “We are aware that [the developer] was building to the proposed plans, and not the approved.

“That is at their own risk and they’ve been advised of that.”

More details can be found at the council’s planning portal using references: P/159/21/PL and P/165/21/PL.