Planners refuse 20 new homes plan after residents complain of 'wanton destruction' of West Sussex village

"I have lived in Yapton for over 70 years and am disgusted with the amount of new building that is destroying our small community. There is no consideration for people already living here."

That was the reaction of one resident among many as plans were submitted by Landlink Estates for 20 dwellings with new access, open space, landscaping and associated works on land west of Drove Lane, Main Road, Yapton.

"How can anyone justify the wanton destruction of our village any more," said another resident. "The village has been destroyed by continuous development over the last few years. Our infrastructure is creaking, there are regular queues through the village, our drainage systems are not able to cope. There is regular flooding."

The new proposed properties, six affordable, would be one to four bedroom detached, semi detached and terraced, a limited number of coach houses and a bungalow with 48.5 parking spaces and four visitor spaces. Access would be created from Main Road.

Yapton Parish Council provided a four-page objection letter mentioning the loss of agricultural land, residential development in the countryside, no need for more housing development in Yapton, the need for infrastructure to support the existing new housing, harm to the character of this edge of settlement rural area by way of location, design and layout, proximity to existing accesses, no sustainable transport links proposed and the impact on existing surface water flooding events.

A further 37 letters of objection were received from residents.

In the decision report, Arun officers said the design and appearance of the houses was inappropriate 'in this edge of settlement location and will be harmful to the character and vernacular of the immediate area and by association with the setting of the Main Road/Church Road Conservation Area, the setting of the locally listed buildings to the north and the setting of the former Portsmouth and Arundel Canal to the south."

Insufficient information had been submitted to show that the proposed number of units, the landscaping and layout are implementable without detrimentally impacting surface water drainage for the site. There was also no signed Section 106 agreement.

To see the decision report on Arun District Council's planning portal use reference Y/149/22/PL.