VOTE: Controversial Wick development approved

Anger and confusion surrounded the decision of Arun District Council’s development control committee on Thursday (October 8), before it finally emerged that the outline planning application was approved.

The first count showed the votes tied at 7-7, but then Yapton councillor Stephen Haymes called out: “Can I vote, please?”, after his name was omitted from the list of members asked if they were “for” or “against”.

He declared himself “for”, but that still wasn’t the end of the confusion, as the result was incorrectly given as 8-7 against, only to be confirmed as being in favour after a further check.

The voting wasn’t the only issue to cause confusion. At one point the meeting was adjourned while planning officers and council solicitor Delwyn Jones grappled with the matter of precisely what the councillors were voting on.

Two months ago, the committee agreed there were no sound planning reasons for turning down the plans, but the decision was deferred for a consultation to take place over whether Courtwick Lane should be used as a second access to the new estate, and over the infrastructure contributions to be made by developers Gleesons.

Committee member Ricky Bower said at the July meeting he wanted members to be clear they were agreeing to every other aspect of the plans apart from those two matters, but at Thursday’s meeting he said councillors had not taken a formal vote or tabled a resolution previously.

Mr Bower, who had voted in favour in July, said he had “done some dabbling on the internet” and found several cases where councils had policies for refusing planning permission for large developments with only a single access.

He claimed that having an additional 1,200 cars from the 600 homes “disgorging” onto the A259 through the proposed single traffic-light controlled access on the A259 was “unacceptable” and he was “disinclined to support” the plans, later voting against.

Littlehampton Ham ward councillor Tony Squires was also against having just one access, but strongly supported the plans.

The homes, he argued, were desperately needed for young people in the present and the future.

It was also the first time he could remember that developers had been tied down to a precise package of infrastructure improvements before construction work began.

Another Littlehampton councillor, John Charles, was the first to claim no vote had been taken previously, and he proposed the plans should be rejected.

However, Littlehampton Brookfield ward councillor Joyce Bowyer had a warning about the results of refusal. “If this development is refused and goes to appeal, then the section 106 agreement (committing developers to the infrastructure payments) goes out of the window.”

Those payments, agreed under a document drawn up by the North Littlehampton Steering Group, made up of officers and councillors from Arun, Littlehampton Town and the county councils, are thought to total about £11m and include £1m for the Lyminster bypass, affordable housing, education contributions and highway improvements.

Amid angry shouts from the public gallery, the vote was finally confirmed in favour of the plans and infrastructure package. However, the second access, along Courtwick Lane, was ruled out.

Do you agree with the decision to build the 600 homes? Cast your vote in the panel to the right of the screen, and leave your comments below.