280 homes and sheltered housing refused for East Wittering

The applications for land at Stubcroft Farm were given an unanimous thumbs-down by members of the planning committee on Wednesday (September 27).

Among the reasons for refusal were the high risk of future flooding of the site and the lack of information provided by applicant Barratt David Wilson Homes to show the site would be adequately drained.

There were also concerns about safety when it came to the access road to the site from Church Road, and the loss of 16.9 hectares of ‘very good’ agriculture land.

It was very much a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ moment for the committee.

They could not defer the plans as the applications had to be decided by Friday (September 29), otherwise the applicant would have been able to launch an appeal on the grounds of non-determination.

As it turned out, though, officers and members had so many concerns about the plans that refusal seemed to be the only option.

Their decision to refuse both applications no doubt pleased the hundreds of people who wrote objecting to the plans.

Some 242 letters were received opposing the development of new homes and a further 174 opposing the sheltered housing.

Sussex Area Ramblers, the Manhood Wildlife & Heritage Group and five parish and town councils also made their objections clear.

There have been ongoing concerns about over-development on the Manhood Peninsula, with permission already given for some 200 new homes which have yet to be built.

Donna Johnson (Green & Local Alliance Group, Sidlesham & Selsey North) said she was ‘very, very uncomfortable’ with these latest plans, adding: “There is far too much wrong with this application to even consider agreeing with it.”

Mrs Johnson said she had seen first-hand what happened when developers believed they could mitigate flood water issues, adding: “But actually when they start to get spades into the ground, they realise that they can’t and the situation very quickly spirals out of control.”

She also pointed out: “This is what happens when we don’t have a five-year housing land supply.

“In our case, with particular regard to the district, this raises issues about the absurdity of our having to try to squeeze all this development into what is only 30 per cent of the district, which is why developers tend to come through with applications for the Peninsula.”

The fact the council does not have a five-year supply of housing land would usually be a big problem should the applicant appeal the decision to refuse.

But there was confidence that there was so much wrong with the two applications that balance would tilt in favour of the authority.

To view the applications, log on to publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk and search for 02214/FULEIA and 22/02235/OUTEIA.