Floodland and driven apart

YOU have previously given me the opportunity to criticise the appallingly inconsiderate, intrusive behaviour of speculators from beyond our district proposing 600-750 new houses and several thousand square metres of commercial space in the totally rural setting off Courtwick Lane.
By The Newsroom
Published 16th Dec 2010, 11:17 BST

Since the issue has moved on from their fantasy exhibitions to a planning application, your readers might like to hear some opinions from those residents affected.

Earlier this month, officers involved in the process appeared from behind the curtain with a one-day exhibition on the scheme in the dingy corner of a shop currently in the process of refurbishment in Littlehampton, some long distance away from the crime scene.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Although this was the council’s “public inquiry” exercise, there in the background hovered the ever-present purveyors of that concoction which had previously so unimpressed the locals, and was now obviously intended to claim support from those living further afield.

It gave the appearance of being an estate agent’s office, and such that one might have felt lucky not to have been sold one of the many plots on offer.

Nowhere does the applicant indicate the true impact of the proposals, either visually or environmentally, and furthermore arrogantly asserts the public should be grateful for the “advantages” the dubious changes to the present critical infrastructure will bring about.

Only those who may still believe in the tooth fairy would be taken in by their patronising gifts presented under offers of inducement.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

It seems, on the face of it, council officers are pursuing success in the application on the basis of member level pre-consultations, and the already concluded land acquisitions made by the developer.

At a recent meeting of the town council planning committee, it was evident from officer advice that their duty lay in only the small matter of objection to detail and not about the principle.

The farmer, who has the most to lose, was then inconsiderately notified that since his land could be inundated as a result of the project, he should realise that, after all, this was the purpose of a flood plain!

I would question if these attitudes are those to be expected of the authority’s staff, since the aim of the public’s response is to have the whole proposal refused.

Derek Hulmes

Kingfisher Drive

Littlehampton