'Damaging and distressing' plans for homes in green gap between East Preston and Ferring

Seaward Properties is proposing 48 residential dwellings – 30 per cent of which (14) would be provided as affordable homes – off Kingston Lane just south of Somerset Road. The remaining 34 market dwellings would comprise a mixture of detached, semi detached and terraced two storey housing.

The developers initially held an online public consultation last year, citing plans for 54 homes – but this number has since reduced.

Anger over council’s advice to developers

The Protect our Gaps Alliance has expressed outrage over the revelation in planning documents that the planning authority, Arun District Council, has ‘encouraged a property developer to fill another part of the green gap’.

According to the developers in its application, the council stated that: “The development would be considered sustainable and as such, the titled balance would be engaged and the development would be considered as acceptable in principle. The detailed matters that would need to be considered in any planning application were set out and are covered in this submission.”

Ed Miller, convenor of the Protect our Gaps Alliance said the proposed development is, in fact, ‘contrary to the council’s policies and Local Plan’.

"Why are the council’s officers giving advice which is contrary to council policy?,” he asked. “If the council refuses permission – as clearly they should – the advice from the officers provides the basis for an appeal.

"The cumulative effect of the permissions granted at Roundstone Farm and Rustington Golf Centre and the current application at Lansdowne Nursery, and published plans for a housing estate at Highdown Vineyard is certainly not sustainable in terms of the impact on amenity, impact on wildlife and on the infrastructure of roads, schools and health services.

“The Protect our Gaps Alliance will do everything it can to oppose this application but the advice given by officers makes it that much more difficult to convince councillors and ultimately the planning inspector, that the policies and detailed allocations in the Local Plan should prevail.

“All the amenity and residents groups. from Rustington to Worthing, will be making it clear to our members what is going on here and encouraging them to object to this application. I trust that all the parish councils will do the same."

In response, Arun District Council said the pre-application advice service is ‘offered to anyone who is thinking about submitting a planning application’ for which planning permission is required.

A spokesperson added: “Council officers were asked for pre-application advice on the pros and cons of the proposal and formed a conclusion. All representations received on the current planning application will be considered as part of assessing the application.”

What is being proposed?

According to application documents, affordable homes would be in two rows of four terraced houses, and a block of six, one-bedroom flats – two of which would be wheelchair accessible.

The site would be served by a new ‘priority junction’ in place of the agriculture access onto Kingston Lane, with an access road and pedestrian link provided.

Seaward, In its initial public consultation process, said the proposed development would not only improve the immediate road network of Kingston Lane, but also provide a ‘high quality, sustainable housing scheme’ with a tree-lined street scene, electric vehicle charging points, access by foot to local facilities, open spaces and links to the wider footpath network.

Amendments were made in response to the 230 responses from local residents on the applicant’s consultation website.

In its official application, estate agent Henry Adams, on behalf of the developer, noted: “In response to concerns raised, detailed technical reports – such as the drainage strategy and transport assessment – will address concerns on drainage and highway capacity. Other reports, such as landscape and ecological assessments will demonstrate how they have influenced the layout and provide for significant enhancements.

“It it noted that there is concern that local facilities and services are over capacity. In that regard, the district council will secure costs towards improvement of infrastructure in the area to ensure appropriate capacity is available for existing and future residents.”

A pre-application enquiry was submitted in 2020. The documents read: “It was acknowledged that development would represent sustainable development as it would; provide housing in sustainable location with access to jobs, which supports local economy; provide a range of homes that could meet the needs of present and future generations and would be sustainably located and within walking distance of a number of nearby services, required for day-to-day needs.

"Officer’s comments concluded that – subject to the comments being taken into account – an application for planning permission would be likely to be approved.”

The developers said ‘moderate landscape effects’ have been identified as it comprises grade one agriculture land. But effects have been shown ‘to be not significant’ and ‘will not have a detrimental effect’ on core functions of the gap between settlements.

They added: “It has been demonstrated that the scheme brings benefits to housing land supply that significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited harm identified.”

Residents object to ‘damaging and distressing’ plans

More than 150 letters of representation have been submitted by local residents – and they are filled with objections.

Among them was a letter which read: “I strongly object [because] the proposed development would put severe strain on the already overstretched public amenities. Existing sewage and waste infrastructure is severely taxed and the surrounding roads are, at the best of times, heavily congested and gridlocked, creating much more air pollution.”

Another concerned local resident said it would be a ‘damaging and distressing’ loss of open space, wildlife habitat and agriculture land.

A further letter read: “I object most strongly to unwelcome and damaging application.”

One woman described the plans as an ‘absolute joke’, adding: “When on earth will the council see sense and realise that Arun is overbuilt and swamped with new developments?”

Another resident said it was ‘astonishing’ the application was ‘even being considered’.

“I thought council policy was to protect these gaps,” yet another disgruntled resident wrote. “Agriculture land is vital to this country, as proved by recent grain issues arising from the Russia Ukraine war. Infrastructure is not capable of supporting any further development.”

It was suggested in the representation letters that developers have rightly argued that ‘we need more affordable housing’ but ‘why not use some of the brown sites in the area?’.

A decision is expected on the application by March 13. To have your say on the application – before the deadline of February 2 – visit the council’s planning portal, using reference number K/56/22/PL.

Have you read?: Another housing development in Yapton approved by Arun District Council

Decision delayed on rapid electric vehicle charging points for Bairds Farm Shop in Climping

Littlehampton Traders’ Partnership is no more as members vote to dissolve group - This is why