Letter

CLOG has prepared this document to assist you in writing to the Council objecting to the outline planning

permission sought for Courtwick. Your letter must be sent to and received by the Council as soon as

possible before the application is formally considered.



Of course, your letter should reflect the aspects of the development which concern you and to which you

object. Feel free to use all or part of these draft paragraphs as you see fit. If you decide to object for other

reasons, please let CLOG know in order that we can collate and use every possible reason for objecting to

the development.



If you wish, you can address your letter from your full street address and include your home phone

number, a daytime and/or mobile number (if relevant) and e-mail address (if you have one). You

should show – as a minimum – your Post Code. Date your letter for easy reference.



The Assistant Director

Planning Services and Housing Strategy

Arun District Council

The Arun Civic Centre

Maltravers Road

Littlehampton

West Sussex BN17 5LF



Dear Sir/Madam,



Planning Application LU/355/10

Gleeson Developments

Case Officer: Mr N Crowther



I write formally to register my opposition to the outline planning permission sought by Gleeson under the

above reference. My reasons are these:



1. General Observations (see the following paragraphs for more details of these points)



 Littlehampton is, sadly, in decline. Efforts to rejuvenate the town are to be commended and must be

encouraged. However, they must address the main “industry” of the town – tourism



 At the present time, there is little chance that major industry will move to Littlehampton. The road

infrastructure alone will keep companies away. Indeed, rumours abound that The Body Shop

(without its local benefactor Anita Roddick at the helm) is likely to move away.



 Any new housing development within miles of Littlehampton will only help make the roads less

tolerable to companies because it will only add to the current congestion levels. Such developments

will become commuting areas.



 The only other local industry traditionally is agriculture. The area has fine agricultural land which

must be preserved.



2. Transport – Roads



 Traffic flow in and out of Littlehampton area MUST use the “H” of roads comprising the A27, A259

and Lyminster Road. These roads are woefully inadequate for today’s traffic levels and carry both

local and “through” traffic. To add more cars to them would deter people or companies from coming

to Littlehampton.



 Most Littlehampton roads are already congested with traffic. In particular, the A259 is a nightmare at

the best of times and the slightest problem (even in Arundel) – an accident or break-down or road

works – causes gridlock which takes several hours to clear. A 10 minute journey can take 2 hours.

 Access to Littlehampton is restricted on the A259 by 2 roundabouts at Tesco and the Body Shop

connected by a single track road (with many exits) and by the river bridge. To the north is Lyminster

Road – a narrow country lane with a level crossing.



 The proposed Lyminster by-pass (if it is ever built) will not alleviate the current problems. It is in the

wrong place, not wide enough and will only move problems to somewhere else (Crossbush for

instance) which will not help Littlehampton’s traffic flow.



 It would be ludicrous to allow any major development until the road system is planned from an

overall standpoint – probably starting with the A27. Indeed, Ford Enterprise Hub stated that

“Development must not proceed without appropriate improvements to the A27 at Arundel” and “the

County Council considers that anything short of a full by-pass at Arundel ... would not address the

problem of through traffic”.



 The question of “through traffic” seems key. This traffic cannot use the A259 (which runs into the

town centre of Bognor Regis) without causing congestion. It must be diverted to the (improved) A27

so Littlehampton has only local traffic with which to contend. The success of the Brighton by-pass to

deal with this type of traffic can be directly compared with gridlock in the Lyons Farm area of

Worthing because no by-pass exists.



 Courtwick Lane and New Courtwick Lane are increasingly used as a “rat run” for traffic wanting to

avoid the Lyminster Road roundabout. Any development will make this worse.



 The proposed development includes a new access point to the A259. The 1998 Town Plan clearly

states “...this land at Courtwick should never be built on (obstructing the view of Arundel from the

river bridge) and that there should be no access of any kind from the by-pass...”.



 The new access would encourage traffic to use Eldon Way as a “rat run” to Clun Road.

Consequently, access to Wick Street/Arundel Road would become more difficult.



 Courtwick would add about an extra 1,200 cars to the roads. As most people travel to work by car in

the rush hour, the A259 could become constantly gridlocked.



3. Transport – Other aspects



 It is proposed to alter part of Courtwick Lane to become a pedestrian/bus only route (this presumes

any bus operator would see such a service viable!). Control would be by an electronic system.

Current residents would be given access by using a key fob (or similar).



 It seems unlikely that enough key fobs would be available for farm traffic (mostly visiting lorries but

also agricultural vehicles). This would force traffic away from using Courtwick Lane (the access

route for at least 50 years). These large vehicles (see my later comments about the farm) would be

forced to use the new proposed access point to the A259 adding even more to the congestion.



 To do this would require these vehicles to make a 90 degree turn in the middle of houses. A mix of

large lorries, agricultural vehicles, cars, cycles and pedestrian (many of the last two being children)

seems a menu for disaster and tragedy.



 The proposed changes to Courtwick Lane show overtaking areas rather than complete widening of

the road. How would this work when a bus is faced with a large agricultural machine within just a

few feet of existing houses. How are visitors and deliveries supposed to take place other than by

putting further traffic on the A259 (see also my later comments about the farm)?



 Many tourists come to Littlehampton specifically to enjoy the countryside and wildlife as they walk

by the river to Arundel. These visitors would no longer come to Littlehampton.



4. The land - flooding

 Much has been written and proposed about the increasing risk of flooding. It is already proposed to

raise river banks in Littlehampton (Pier Road) and north towards Arundel towards the area under

discussion. Gleeson have made light of the potential problems the development could bring perhaps

because they did their water survey during the driest part of Summer 2010. Parts of the area of the

proposed development already regularly flood.



 The development will add acres of concrete to an area already potentially at risk (and house owners

will add to this in future years). The development could make flooding more likely and the effects of

the flood could be felt for many miles around – including the centre of Littlehampton, other local

residential areas and up as far as Arundel.



 In some parts of the area it is already difficult to get house insurance.



5. The land – other aspects



 The development will be on prime arable land which has been farmed for decades. Surely, it is in

local and national interest that land be retained for this use. This would help in keeping the country

self sufficient and would help reduce air and sea traffic bringing in essential food supplies.



 Littlehampton has many brown field sites. These have remained unused for some time and are

eyesores. This cannot be in Littlehampton’s best interest and certainly does not encourage the

tourism the town needs. Surely, theses sites should be developed before ruining valuable arable

land.



 The views of Arundel from several parts of Littlehampton are a delight to be treasured – especially

to all important tourists. The proposed development will detract from this.



 There is much wildlife in the area and any development will change their environment forever and

may result in the loss of some species.



6. The existing Farm



 At the end of Courtwick Lane, a farm has operated since at least the 1940s. It has a prize herd of

Charolais cattle as well as suckling cattle and sheep. Hay and straw are also grown.



 As a supplier to supermarkets, the Farm has deliveries at all times of day and night and this is often

on the largest of lorries – double-decker cattle lorries, 45 ft articulated lorries etc. In addition, the

usual farm machinery uses the road. With the size of farming machinery constantly growing, the

road is already becoming too narrow.



 The proposal would mean all this traffic would go through the middle of the new development – on

top of the new traffic created by the development. This is neither practical nor very safe (see earlier

comments).



 Courtwick Lane is the farm’s only access route and it has rights of access. It has contributed to the

upkeep of the lane including the cost of laying part of the concrete road in the 1960s.



 The water supply for the farm is provided by a bore hole about 100/150 yards from the boundary of

the proposed development. Some years ago, this water was found to contain traces of a chemical

only used to spray peas or blackcurrants. These were only grown in the area of the proposed

development. This proves that underground water flows south to north – i.e. from the proposed

development through the farm land towards the river. With all the digging and general upheaval on

the land, it seems likely that the proposed development will contaminate the bore hole.



 Without clean water, the farm would not be able to sustain its present role and may be forced to

shut down. No development should be allowed to do this.

 The close presence of hundreds of people to the farm could affect the wellbeing of the farm

animals. The possibility of malicious action against these animals would inevitably increase. This is

another reason the farm could fail. No development should be allowed to do this.



7. Infrastructure



 The current infrastructure of the area is already at stretching point. It is probable that cuts will be

made to all services as part of our current economic position. 600 new houses and 2,000 new

residents will add an intolerable burden to already stretched resources.



 Nothing is proposed concerning the impact up to 2,000 new residents will have on doctors, dentists,

police, fire service and in Council administration staff.



 Nothing is proposed for schools which would have to absorb 600/1,000 extra pupils.



 No mention is made of the need for a local hospital.



 A new pub has been proposed. Littlehampton is an area where pubs are closing almost daily. Why

build another white elephant?



 These problems will be exacerbated if other local developments are also accepted



8. Industry



 It is proposed to build small industrial units to provide more local work. Why? Littlehampton

(including the area immediately south of the proposed development) already has a multitude of

empty factory units which cannot be filled. Companies will not move to the Littlehampton – the road

infrastructure alone will keep companies away. Littlehampton has become partly a dormitory town

for commuters who would never find local work as well paid as elsewhere.



 A 2005 survey of local companies by Nomis showed that Arun’s wages were dramatically less than

elsewhere in the south. Arun showed £396 per week; the national average was £518; £539 in the

south-east; Adur was £480; Worthing £438. Crawley and Horsham figures exceeded £500. How are

new industrial units going to encourage more business?



 The area’s main industries are horticulture/agriculture, tourism and retail. It is these areas that need

to be encouraged – not more empty industrial units.



9. If you live along Courtwick Lane – particularly in the Kingfisher Drive/ Linnet Close area – you may want to

include this paragraph.



Connection with other estates



 It is planned to connect the playing field section of the development to the existing estate in Linnet

Close and Kingfisher Drive. It seems likely that people coming to the playing field will be tempted to

use these roads to park rather than use whatever parking facilities are provided



 These areas already have parking problems and it is almost impossible to find a parking place

without inconveniencing residents. Also, many of the houses rely on Rights of Access just to get to

their own house



 I would prefer there to be no access into the proposed development.



 The development includes a small “spur” of (currently wild) land next to the railway line to the north-

east of the site. It is planned to use this to connect to Linnet Close. I would prefer this to be left as it

is. It acts as an excellent deterrent to keep children away from the railway line.



10. Summary

 In my view, the proposed development brings no advantages to Littlehampton nor, more

importantly, to most town residents.



 Travel to, from and around the area will probably become intolerable – especially if included with

other proposed developments in the area.



 The risk of flooding will be greatly increased. Not just on the development but throughout the district.

The disastrous effect of this has been seen several times over recent years in many parts of the

world – Chichester comes to mind as a situation close to home!



 It is unlikely that the development will bring in new and affluent residents and certainly not new

industry. I conjecture that we may see more people relying on benefits



11. And finally...



Arun District Council plans have included many policies about development:



The general policies (Local Plan)

 General attractiveness and diversity of landscape

 Open and undeveloped nature of the countryside

 Quality and natural assets such as air supply, water, environments and high quality agricultural

land. The countryside is an important resource and needs to be protected for its own sake

 Development which does not materially add to road congestion



Policy Gen 7 says that development will be permitted provided it does not have an unacceptable impact

on adjoining occupiers, land, uses or properties



Policy Gen 9 (Foul and Surface Water Drainage). Planning permission for development which will

materially increase foul and/or surface water discharges will be refused unless the Local Planning

Authority is satisfied that either adequate drainage exists or appropriate drainage capacity can be

provided as part of the local development (ensure that flooding problems elsewhere are not

exacerbated)



Policy Gen 11 (Inland Flooding). Permission for development which would be at risk from flooding

and/or materially decrease the capacity of a floodplain to store or pass flows of flood water will be

refused unless LPA is satisfied that compensatory flood storage/waterway areas can be provided as

part of the development and the function and effectiveness of existing watercourses are not adversely

affected



Policy Gen 23 (The Water Environment). Development will not be permitted if it would have a direct or

indirect unacceptable adverse impact on the water environment notably in relation to rivers, ponds,

wetlands etc



Policy Gen 30 (Protection of Species). Development will not be permitted which would adversely affect,

directly or indirectly, animal and plant species protected by law



I believe that, if planning permission is granted, the development would contravene National, Regional,

County and Local Area Plans and I submit that planning permission for this proposal should be refused.



Please acknowledge this letter of objection.



Yours faithfully,







Name (s)

Note: You should ensure the acknowledgement you receive refers to the correct planning application

number. One objection letter acknowledgement referred to an application for a garage!