Community header template

Originally published Summer 2021

DEVELOPMENT plans are always contentious and none more so than the one the Norfolk Estate is planning for Ford Road. With a decision imminent, the Community Land Trust have outlined the case for the development below. There is also a letter, first published in the West Sussex Gazette, from the Chair of the CLT, Darrell Gale, who lives very close to the site. Following on are four letters The Bell has received from residents who also live near the site, but who oppose the plan, outlining why they object.

FROM THE ARUNDEL COMMUNITY LAND TRUST

Arundel CLT was formed to manage delivery of Affordable Homes for Arundel. Our first project involves 20 ‘socially’ rented homes on the development off Ford Road as set out in the adopted 2019 Arundel Neighbourhood Plan. Unlike many ‘brownfield sites’ this scheme has 30% Affordable Homes, and, the landowner is sympathetic to working collaboratively with the CLT. Compare this to the plans that have come forward so far for the Blastreat/ Fitzalan Road sites.

As well as the 20 CLT homes, let at ‘social’ rents (about half of market rent), there will be 7 Shared Ownership homes. People with local connections to Arundel will have priority and in April we did a survey of members to help shape the details of the Local Lettings Policy that we are negotiating with Arun District Council and our Registered Provider of Social Housing.

The Norfolk Estate consistently emphasise that the site will be designed at above the will be designed at above the normal levels in terms of both look as well as materials used thus creating an attractive addition to the existing housing stock.

The site will provide new green spaces for all to enjoy as well as attractive access to Public Rights of Way (PROW) network and eventually the new Arundel to Ford cycle/walking path. There will also be new allotments for all to apply for.

There will eventually be a new community building on the site for all groups to use. This will be the only truly accessible community building in Arundel.

Traffic on Ford Road will continue to increase for many reasons – now is the time to think about your attitude to traffic calming – West Sussex County Council say it’s ok to maintain the current 40 mph speed limit even when the new road junction to access the new housing is in place. How slow are you prepared to go?

Because Arundel has a Neighbourhood Plan in place, 25% of the Community Infrastructure Levy from the new homes comes directly to the town. Leaving 75% for providers of other services including schools and health to address the needs of expanding population.

The 2019 NP passed a Referendum of residents, the only real test, with an 80% majority and is now adopted by ADC for use in assessing all plans coming forward for developments.
Without an adopted NP all the developable sites in Arundel that were assessed (and most rejected) during the NP process would be at risk of development by rogue outside developers with little care for local issues only maximising sales and providing for ADC’s increasing housing needs.
Remember, prior to the NP the original plan for this site was just under 200 homes, the NP process reduced this to 90, with 27 affordable and the provision of land for ATC to build a community building.

If you are not yet a member of the Arundel CL, please consider joining this important organisation serving our community. You can have a say in what projects we take on and how we work. More information and membership forms can be found here http://arundelclt.org/

As Chair of Arundel Community Land Trust, I am compelled to respond to Mr C Percival’s letter in the West Sussex Gazette of 20 January 2021 regarding the Outline Planning Application for 90 homes at Ford Road, Arundel.

Very few people want to see green fields developed. Arundel is blessed by its setting; yet is constrained as much by the natural and built heritage as by nature in the form of floodplains and ancient woodland. The majority of the large gardens and orchards of the old town
have been built upon; most industrial sites too; leaving nowhere for the town to grow. With our broken housing market; many houses in the town are second homes or Airbnb/holiday lets. This leaves nowhere for people with a stake in the town to live; most especially those on the lowest incomes; or whose needs cannot be met by the market. My lovely first floor views look straight over the site proposed for the new houses; but it is the 27 of these which will be affordable homes for the town which make me support the proposal wholeheartedly.

Our planning system is even more broken than the housing market. This site was first proposed for nearly 300 houses; which would have easily got planning permission had the town not so vociferously backed our new Neighbourhood Plan to limit the development onto a small part of the site; AND commit to 30% affordable homes INCLUDING many at social rent; ensuring a home in town for those most excluded. It is a developers’ world sadly, yet we have maximised gain for the town; that smaller sites including brownfield sites would never have achieved. There have only been a handful of houses built in Arundel in the 20 years I have lived here.
This application is not about the wanton destruction of Arundel’s setting. It is about natural growth and securing a home for many families who have only ever dreamt of it.

DARRELL GALE
Torton Hill Road, Arundel

LETTERS FROM RESIDENTS OF TORTON HILL

In November 2019, the Arundel Neighbourhood Plan Referendum (2) was held and it now included the proposed development on the field on the Ford Road. Of an electorate of 2809 there was a turnout of 984, just 35.03% of the population of Arundel. The number of those in favour of the plan was 790, and those against 193. Once it was confirmed the Norfolk Estate intended to apply for planning to build 90 houses on the Ford Road field, a petition was raised and 700 people signed to say they were against the development. This petition was submitted to the Duke of Norfolk. Since full planning was requested, there have been a further 127 letters submitted to Arun District Council’s planning department, objecting to these houses being built. This means, along with the original 193 objections to the Town Plan, 36.3% of the population of Arundel have now voted against the development, and the number is growing. This suggests that the reality of the impact this development will have on our Town is now of great concern to many residents, and I list some of these below.

1/ Ford Road, which is an already busy, congested, dangerous road, will be even more so with a minimum of 90 cars and, more realistically, 180+ cars feeding onto it from the development.

2/ Priory Lane is barely big enough for one car to use, but it will become a cut through for people coming from Chichester to the Ford Road development. They will also use Pearson Road, Torton Hill Road and Maxwell Road, as many already do, to save the bottle neck on Ford Road by the roundabout.

3/ The two local schools are already at capacity and,
now they have revised the development plan showing a potential new nursery school/community centre at the entrance to the west of Priory Road, many of these children will want places at the school.

4/ There is no easy access for secondary school children to reach either a suitable bus or train and, even if the new cycle route and footpath is built, the reality is that the children will be driven by car, further congesting Ford Road.

5/ The GP surgery in Arundel already appears at capacity as we often have to wait up to 3 weeks for a non-urgent appointment. With a minimum of 180 additional people, and it is more likely to be double this number once you count the young people too, this will impact further on the surgery and existing residents trying to get an appointment.

6/ The site will have 30 affordable and 60 private houses on it. Whilst few would question that affordable housing is important to encourage younger people to live in Arundel, by putting them on the outskirts of town, rather than using some of the brown field sites nearer or in the Town, this will not encourage them to use the shops, public transport, Churches and social activities to be as involved in the town as is hoped.

Most important of all, however, must surely be keeping this field, used for agriculture for hundreds of years, for that purpose. We are in an age where climate change is on everyone’s minds, and the preservation of our wildlife is imperative, so keeping as much green space as possible is vital. You only have to look at what is happening at Ford, Climping, Yapton, Littlehampton and Angmering, to see that once planning is granted for this site, we are likely to see houses on our fields all the way down to Ford Station. The fact this development is even being planned shows that Arundel is no different to any of these other places. So, if like many of us, you don’t want the uniqueness of the setting of Arundel to be lost in a sprawling mass of new houses, please write to the Duke of Norfolk at the Norfolk Estate Office, Arundel, BN18 9AS, urging him to rethink this application.

ALISON WILKINSON
Arundel

I object to the plans on these fronts:

1-The current plans include building a perimeter road immediately behind my property (Dalloway) which will bring noise and access into my garden increasing security risks. The road (if built) should not be on the perimeter.

2-Emergency access in Dalloway road should not be allowed as people will still use this for motorbikes/ bicycles and as people may not realise Dalloway Road is very narrow and already very crowded meaning more traffic (including visitors to the site) will make this very dangerous for residents especially children. The emergency access should be Priory road where there are minimal cars already using this.

3-The lower density housing should be at the north end of the site (Dalloway) not the South East and it all should include low level lighting as per the South Downs National Park wishes as this backs directly onto the National Park giving light pollution as well reducing the inevitable overlooking of Dalloway road/High Ridge close gardens.

4-Greenfield development should not be permitted unless absolutely necessary. There are plenty of brownfield options in Arundel (and also owned by the Dukes Estate meaning he will still gain the financial benefit).

CHRIS BALL
Dalloway Road, Arundel

If you are a long term resident of Arundel, or someone who loves to come here and walk the green fields and footpaths surrounding the Tortington perimeter, then I’m sure you must feel sad to see this special place destroyed by unnecessary building on agricultural land.

If this goes ahead, with the Grey Route by-pass cutting across also, there are plans to infill the whole area with more houses up to Ford Crossings and become a suburb of Littlehampton. This last green area is habitat to much wildlife which keeps on being pushed back to extinction. The Duke may feel by Arun pushing for more development he can make money and provide for those who wish to live in Arundel near their residential parents. But these groups such as Arundel Town Council, Love Arundel and the Community Land Trust, are mostly run by people who have ‘evolved’ in recent years to spoil the town and area. Those of us who have seen this happen (and there are many, some of whom sadly wish to move from this area now) are angry that people were told if they allowed this building at Ford Road, Arun would not build I quote ‘hundreds of houses’ here (I still have the leaflet). Not so, it is an open door. Clymping has now to have a huge development and Yapton, Barnham and Ford have been filled in. We do not need houses for our young people built on good, ancient agricultural fields. Within two miles now there are plenty!

Please save this land while we can. There are suitable fields each side of the existing by-pass and Fitzalan Road is far more suitable, people could walk into the town. At the end of the day, The Duke still owns this land and could keep it safe for future generations.

J. FAGGETTER
Arundel

There is a planning application for houses on a greenfield site here in Arundel. Surely before this is approved, we should first be exhausting all possible brownfield sites?

Speaking in the House of Commons, the Arundel and South Downs MP Andrew Griffith said: “…my constituents are blighted by development proposals on unsustainable greenfield sites….” He also observed that it was a “fallacy that the only answer is to pile up even more supply”

Moreover, the “affordable housing” element of developments should surely honour key workers, care workers, supermarket workers and others. The criteria for “affordable” should allow these pandemic heroes and their families to be able to live in Arundel. Have we really got such short memories?

TALYA KELLY
Arundel