Planning application K/46/23/PL for 47 residential dwellings on farm land in Kingston but built right up to the boundary with East Preston, will be considered for approval by Arun District Council’s Planning Committee on 20^th March, 2024.

The Parishes of Kingston, Angmering, East Preston, Ferring and Rustington all made strong objections during the consultation period and Arun received 448 individual letters of objection from members of the public.

The Chairman of Kingston Parish Council said “Members of Council are shocked and horrified that there is an officer recommendation to approve this application on land that is important for its Grade 1 agricultural use, its protected countryside location in the strategic gap and its importance to the local community.” 

The Parish Council remains strongly opposed to the proposed development and will speak at the Planning Committee meeting on the 20^th March. It says:

Residential development of the land is in serious conflict with the Arun Local Plan policies SD SP2, SD SP3, SO DM1, and C SP1 as the site is not allocated for residential development; is outside of the defined Built-up Area Boundary; is Grade 1 agricultural land, lies within the Countryside; and forms an important part of the defined settlement gap between East Preston and Ferring. 

The applicant in its submission makes the case that any such conflicts with the development plan should be set aside because of a current shortfall in housing land supply. 

However, this approach is not consistent with the latest relevant legislative provisions.  The enactment of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023 fundamentally altered the wording and effect of Planning and Compensation Act 2004 regarding the role of national development management policies in planning decision making.  It now provides that, in deciding a planning application:

“… the determination must be made in accordance with the development plan and any national development management policies, unless material considerations strongly indicate otherwise.” and “If to any extent the development plan conflicts with a national development management policy, the conflict must be resolved in favour of the national development management policy.”

The application site is acknowledged to be of the highest category in agricultural land value terms, identified as Grade 1.  In this context the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that the application site should only be considered for development if no land of lower quality is available. 

Even if it is accepted that some agricultural land may need to be identified for development in the District, the Officers Report confirms that no assessment has been undertaken which demonstrates that no land of lesser agricultural quality than the application site is available.  It seems inconceivable that any comprehensive assessment of the availability of potentially developable land in the District could reasonably conclude that no land of lower agricultural quality than the Grade 1 of the application site is available for development.  It follows, therefore, that the proposed development of the Grade 1 land of the application site would amount to a fundamental conflict with the national development management policy set out in paragraphs 180 and 181.

The Officers Report draws a comparison in agricultural land quality terms with development south of Littlehampton Road and east of Worthing Rd Angmering [reference A/168/21/PL].  Planning permission for residential use was granted on appeal in that case but the circumstances there are significantly different from those at the Kingston site, in at least 3 ways.

1. The agricultural land quality of the Angmering site was Grade 2, whereas the Kingston site is of higher quality, Grade 1.
2. The Angmering appeal was decided before the enactment of the 2023 Act so that the specific changes to section 38 of the 2004 Act were not in play at that time.
3. A very recent judgement of the High Court (16 February 2024) has found that it was not irrational to find against a development on agricultural land terms where there had been no adequate assessment of potential alternative sites, notwithstanding that inherent difficulty of doing so. (LULLINGTON SOLAR PARK LTD v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR LEVELLING UP, HOUSING AND COMMUNITIES and SOUTH DERBYSHIRE DISTRICT COUNCIL). [2024] EWHC 295 (Admin)

There are, as the Officers Report points out, clear conflicts with development plan policies relating to the Built Up Area Boundary, safeguarding the Countryside and Gaps Between Settlements.  These conflicts, and especially the loss of Grade 1 agricultural land contrary to the clear policy of the NPPF in this regard, amount to compelling reasons for refusing planning permission for the proposed development.

Although the 47 dwellings proposed could be said to make some limited contribution to the alleviation of any numerical shortfall in housing provision locally, this would be modest.  In view of the nature and extent of the policy conflicts, it cannot reasonably be concluded that this modest contribution would amount to a consideration of such strength that it would justify setting aside the relevant development plan and national development management policies, with which the proposed development would clearly conflict.

Planning permission should therefore be refused for the development proposed in application K/46/23/PL.

 

Val Knight

Clerk of the Council  

email clerk@kingston-wsx-pc.gov.uk                                                              11th March, 2024

 

NOTES:

Link to application on Arun District Council’s website: https://www1.arun.gov.uk/planrec/index.cfm?tpkey=eOcella&user_key_1=K/46/23/PL&KeyScheme=Planning

Link to High Court decision re LULLINGTON SOLAR PARK LTD: https://www.shropshire.gov.uk/media/27358/cd-737-lullington-solar-park-ltd-v-secretary-of-state-for-levelling-up-housing-and-communities.pdf