Statements or important information

29th. July 2017

This is a short resumee of the response Hanbury (Pagham Rd. development) gave in reply to Pagham Parish Councils objections to that and other developments, remember you are only seeing a "cut down" version of the 12 points they raised. Further down you have the opportunity of clicking on a link to access all 12 points if you so wish, it may help further your objection stance.

Briefly, all 3 sites ... Sefter, Hook and Pagham Rd. (Hanbury) have had re-submissions, but these are NOT considered new applications. Therefore your previous objections still stand. They merely show some changes to the existing plan's submitted which we (all ?) hopefully objected to. If we concentrate on Pagham Rd., letter's need to be written before the 24th. August 2017 still quoting this time ALL 4 developments saying the criteria is the same across all of them. Your objection should be based on the comments that Hanbury have made discrediting Pagham Parish Council's objections to all these developments.

There were 12 key points bought up by Hanbury, I have listed 6 below briefly and PAGAM's short response to jog you. If you wish to look at the detailed comments on all 12 by Hanbury, click on the link further down this page of the website, (which has all the Application numbers ) Numbered points below are the developers response.

1.            Loss of agricultural land very low when put into context. Represents only 0.14% of BMV (Best and Most Versatile) land in the district (I did not make up BMV, their words !)

Our Response ... If this argument is used against all the large developments planned, it WOULD certainly mount up very quickly. Quoting this development in isolation is not valid.

2.           Development will provide local employment - school, healthcare, care home etc., plus employment during construction.

Our Response ... Hypothetical, as school, healthcare facilities and care home NOT set in stone. They admit if healthcare option not taken up, it will be used for "other" purposes (extra housing ?). Jobs in construction are generally pulled in from outside the area.

3.            Cumulative traffic studies (includes all 3 sites) concluded "the development sites can be accommodated within the Highways network without a material impact on operation or safety" ..  their words.

Our Response ... If we include West Bersted (right next door) and there were 4000 extra homes, if only 75% (3000) had 2 cars, then that would be an additional 6000 cars on top of the chaos that exists.

4.           Natural England and ADC's Ecologist do not object (!!) to the proposed development, saying it will enhance the natural environment.

Our Response ... Where will the birds and other ecology go when confronted with 400 plus homes, school, rest home etc., this close to Pagham Harbour.

5.            Good range and choice of housing for all ages onsite, bungalows, 1 & 2 bedroom homes etc.

Our Response ... But they do say as a caveat .. "if there is market demand" (their words) so no solid commitment there.

6.           Flooding issues, they say there is no objections from the Environment Agency, West Sussex County Council Flood Risk Management Team (really !) and the Councils Drainage Engineer.

Our Response ... We have heard this all before, think 2012, and the flooding in some form goes on and on ......

*********************************************

NOTE : IF YOU WISH TO SEE ALL 12 POINTS THAT HANBURY RAISED, CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW, ITS A PDF ONLY 3 PAGES LONG BUT MAY HELP YOU EVEN MORE

CLICK HERE   >>>>>>>>  https://files.acrobat.com/a/preview/cadf59fc-2793-425a-bafd-a91e23896913

DON'T FORGET THESE  ARE THE PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBERS YOU MUST QUOTE IN YOUR LETTER

           SEFTER ROAD                                         P/134/16/OUT

HOOK LANE                                          P/6/17/OUT

             PAGHAM ROAD (HANBURY)              P/140/16/OUT

       CHURCH BARTON HOUSE                P/25/17/OUT

AND FINALLY ...... 1 LETTER CAN HAVE ALL 4 APPLICATIONS ATTACHED IT, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, 2 PEOPLE IN 1 RESIDENCE I.E. MAN AND WIFE CAN EACH SEND A LETTER OR 4 PEOPLE IN A HOUSE CAN SEND 4 LETTERS, IT ALL COUNTS !

*******************************************

* A STATEMENT FROM PAGHAM PARISH COUNCIL  29th. NOVEMBER  2016 *

SOMETHING REFRESHING FOR PAGHAM AND ALDWICK RESIDENTS TO CONSIDER WHEN DECIDING WHETHER TO WRITE A LETTER OF OBJECTION AGAINST ANY OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS (SEFTER, PAGHAM ROAD AND NOW HOOK LANE)

Well ... the good news is that on the 29th.November 2016, Pagham Parish Council, at its Extra Ordinary General Meeting, discussed a motion which was proposed by Cllr. Mr. Higson. After some small amendments from the statement made in the agenda for the meeting it was subsequently voted upon, and RESOLVED that the following statement would be passed .....

“This Council is strongly opposed to all of the proposed large scale developments known to be being considered within the Parish of Pagham. It is highly critical of Arun District Council’s attempts to master plan multiple sites by imposing strategic allocations of housing on Pagham in unsuitable and unsustainable areas without consultation and in direct opposition to the wishes of the electorate of Pagham as expressed through the emerging Neighbourhood Plan”

It is inspirational to know that Pagham Parish Council should issue such a strongly worded statement which clearly shows that they fully respect the wishes of their parishioners and are prepared to fight their "corner" against Arun District Council and the proposed developments.

                                               *******************************************************************