Proposed development on land west of Bilsham Road causes consternation
by our reporter
‘There is consternation in Yapton, because of the proposed Boklok
development, for Land West of Bilsham Rd., Ref. Y/ 52/23/PL. The application has already received 260 representation letters objecting to it, because of its alleged unsuitability.
Amongst them is an objection from WSCC as the LEA for the area.
This is because there are insufficient placements in local secondary schools to accommodate the ever- increasing numbers, brought about by recent development. Boklok have advised of their own undated list of pupil
placement figures, but these appear to be at variance with the concerns
expressed by WSCC.
If approval is granted for the development, it will be for 170 dwellings added to 30 currently in process, 20 in consideration for approval, and in addition to the Drove Lane area developments of approx. 500 over time.
An S106 developer contribution for the area, is currently under review
between Boklok and ADC. This is in relation to a provision for transport costs for secondary schoolchildren who will now have to travel out of the Yapton and Arun area to go to schools as far away as Crawley and Selsey.
In the developer’s recent correspondence with ADC planning, it indicated that they consider that this requirement had allegedly been ‘added’ and is objected to on that basis, and in relation to the amount. They have also indicated their preference to contribute towards other local amenities instead.
It is difficult to see how any such difficulty between the two parties may have arisen regarding this, because details as to how this process should be
undertaken in such an eventuality, are already on the ADC website. They can be viewed in the section: ’Secondary School Transport Payments,
(item 5)’. It clearly states in confirmation, that payments are required from developers towards transport costs, ‘Until a secondary school has been built and is open for pupils’. Further explanatory and confirming details in connection with such a requirement follows in that text.
As this detailing has apparently been on the ADC website since well before any application for the site was placed, it would seem difficult to state that this factor has been ‘added’ later.
It would also appear incumbent on developers to be aware of all relevant
details available for review from local authority documents from the outset. Especially those that may affect the S106 agreement developer payment contributions in prospect. It remains to be seen whether our local children and their parents, will receive the assistance they need, and as required by WSCC as LEA and ADC. Or, whether they will be deprived of them, so that the desires and wished of Boklok as developers will prevail’.