Up to 56 homes at Land off Arundel Road, Fontwell

The site and surroundings

The 2.74-hectare site is a flat grassed field with hedged boundaries, a public footpath and the A27 nearby.

“The application proposes to take vehicular access from Arundel Road almost opposite Richmond House. This will take the form of a priority junction with a carriageway width of 5.5m and 1.8m footways on each side. Two uncontrolled pedestrian (tactile paved) crossing points are shown on either side of the access to allow pedestrians to cross onto the southern side of Arundel Road.”

“SITE CHARACTERISTICSGrassed field with vegetated boundaries. The site red edge includes the public footpath on the western edge and also an electric substation beyond the path. There are existing accesses to the site at the south-west and south-east corners. CHARACTER OF LOCALITYEdge of settlement location but with houses to the west (beyond the footpath), and the south (beyond Arundel Road). The eastern edge of the site borders the A27 dual carriageway.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval subject to conditions and a Section 106 agreement, finding no harmful impacts and support from the housing need.

“Para 11 (c) of the NPPF states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development means approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay. Notwithstanding the conflict with WNDP Policy HP18 2020 in terms of the quantum of development, the proposal is nevertheless in accordance with the BUAB policies of both the WNDP and the ALP.”

“(a) Grant full planning permission subject to conditions including agreement of the required surface water drainage conditions; and (b) Subject to a Section 106 Agreement, the terms of which are substantially in accordance with those set out in this report with any minor amendments authorised by the Group Head of Planning. HUMAN RIGHTS ACT The Council in making a decision should be aware of and take into account any implications that may arise from the Human Rights Act 1998.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Most technical consultees raised no objection subject to conditions, while education and drainage matters required contributions, controls or further agreement.

“WSCC HIGHWAYS - no objection subject to conditions to secure the access, a construction management plan, and approval of a Travel Plan. State that this proposal has been subject to pre- application advice, a site visit, and a Stage 1 Road Safety Audit.”

“PORTSMOUTH WATER - no objection subject to conditions to prevent piled foundations, to control surface and foul water drainage, to protect against unexpected land contamination and secure a construction management plan. Also request that ADC seek to restrict water usage to a minimum standard of 100 litres per person per day.”

Officer report

What people raised

The Parish Councils and objectors raised concerns about density, infrastructure, traffic, pollution, flooding, landscape, biodiversity and community facilities.

“- A reduction in density as the proposal is for a significantly greater number of dwellings than the policy. - The community facility being built not just provided as land. - A Grampian condition being applied to prevent occupation until the sewerage infrastructure and facilities have been adequately upgraded. - Noise Exposure Assessments and Air Quality Assessments must be conditioned in view of the proximity to the A27.”

“- Conflicts with the development plan policies. - Conflict with para 14 of the NPPF. - Overdevelopment of the site. - Harm to local landscape character. - Development on green space. - No need for a new community facility but childcare is needed. - Increased traffic and associated safety concerns. - Need speed ramps along Arundel Road to reduce traffic speeds. - Risk of vehicles leaving the A27 and crashing into the community building. - Need for a safe crossing of the A27.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Principal Planning Officer gave an update, and the Ward Member addressed the committee after the Chair confirmed there was no public speaking.

Members discussed the delay

Members questioned whether a short deferral was realistic, sought progress updates and supported more time because of negotiations and the Christmas period.

“Members debated the recommendation to defer the application. Councillor Northeast requested that the Chair be kept informed of progress during discussions between parties, which was agreed. Councillor Gunner expressed frustration at the delays and questioned whether deferring for one month was realistic, suggesting either resolving the matter immediately or allowing a longer deferral. Officers advised that…”

Minutes

The committee vote

The proposal to defer the application to January as a final deadline was seconded and carried unanimously.

“The Chair proposed deferring the item to allow for additional progress to be made, but it be brought back to the committees January meeting as a final deadline, which was seconded by Councillor Cooper and carried unanimously…”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee deferred the report to allow further progress, requiring an update at the January 2026 meeting at the latest.

“The report be DEFERED to allow for additional progress to be made. An update must be brought back to the committees January 2026 meeting at the latest.”

Minutes