Plans for homes next to Worthing's Titnore Woods voted down

The Argus: GRAFFITI: Save Titnore Woods was daubed on the doors of the Assembly Hall before this afternoon's meeting GRAFFITI: Save Titnore Woods was daubed on the doors of the Assembly Hall before this afternoon's meeting

UPDATE: Plans for 875 homes next to Titnore Woods have been unanimously rejected to a standing ovation from protesters who danced for joy in the public gallery.

Protester Trevor Hodgson, of Pavilion Road, Worthing, said he was surprised by the decision but absolutely delighted.

He said: “I think they realised the residents are so against this.”

Councillor John Livermore, chairman of the planning committee, said: “The decision is only one step down the road. This will be back, that’s for sure.”

He added the developers may now submit an appeal or go for a judicial review.

Resident Raymond Cawson, 70, of Adur Avenue, West Durrington, said common sense had prevailed.

Before the meeting, more than 120 protesters chanted "Save Titnore Woods" before this afternoon's crucial planning meeting.

There was a heavy police presence outside the Assembly Hall, Worthing, as people attending the meeting were body-searched by security guards before being allowed in.

Banners and placards were confiscated at the entrance amid fears that trouble would erupt during the meeting to discuss the new estate at West Durrington, Worthing.

Councillors and officers were booed as they took their seats and within five minutes there were interruptions from the floor.

Among the protesters was Sid Wakeham, 73, of Cobden Road, Worthing, who was dressed as a green man.

Joy Hurcombe, the first member of the public to speak, urged the committee to abandon the meeting, prompting loud cheering and applause.

She said a Government inspector had ruled that Worthing had built too many new houses.

Coun John Livermore urged people to act with decorum so everybody was able to get their points of view across.

James Appleton, the council's head of planning, regeneration and wellbeing, said before the decision: "There is a requirement to provide a continuous five-year supply of housing land. Unfortunately the planning committee cannot just not deal with this planning application. It is required to deal with the application."

He said the meeting had been moved from the evening to the afternoon so there was more time to debate the issue.

Comments (24)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:57pm Mon 15 Mar 10

saveHOVE says...

It is utterly despicable to destroy Titmore Woods - beyond madness.

There is not the infrastructure in the form of hospital capacity or schools or quality of life for existing residents even anywhere along the south coast. Why is the south of England having to put up with profound overdevelopment when the north of England is neglected and left to rot?

What kind of country is this that sees ancient woodland as disposable? Or any woodland for that matter....
It is utterly despicable to destroy Titmore Woods - beyond madness. There is not the infrastructure in the form of hospital capacity or schools or quality of life for existing residents even anywhere along the south coast. Why is the south of England having to put up with profound overdevelopment when the north of England is neglected and left to rot? What kind of country is this that sees ancient woodland as disposable? Or any woodland for that matter.... saveHOVE

3:16pm Mon 15 Mar 10

miffy72 says...

NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

Clearly from saveHOVE's comments they wouldn't be bothered if this was hapenning elsewhere in the country
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY Clearly from saveHOVE's comments they wouldn't be bothered if this was hapenning elsewhere in the country miffy72

3:53pm Mon 15 Mar 10

worthinglogic says...

miffy72 wrote:
NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY

Clearly from saveHOVE's comments they wouldn't be bothered if this was hapenning elsewhere in the country
It's about protecting one of the last remaining bits of ancient woodland on the coastal strip, pleb face.
[quote][p][bold]miffy72[/bold] wrote: NIMBY NIMBY NIMBY Clearly from saveHOVE's comments they wouldn't be bothered if this was hapenning elsewhere in the country[/p][/quote]It's about protecting one of the last remaining bits of ancient woodland on the coastal strip, pleb face. worthinglogic

5:02pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Carl Bugenhagen says...

Build the houses. SaveHove might want to bus the poor out of their own neighbourhoods but who cares, people need places to live. Ban buy to let, give second homes 8 times council tax and let the dispossessed of this nation have one ounce of security in their unstable, shorthold tenancy lives. Yeah woods are great but get real, the housing shortage is a living misery for millions in this country and if you don't have the heart to understand that, I'm not going to bleed for your trees.
Build the houses. SaveHove might want to bus the poor out of their own neighbourhoods but who cares, people need places to live. Ban buy to let, give second homes 8 times council tax and let the dispossessed of this nation have one ounce of security in their unstable, shorthold tenancy lives. Yeah woods are great but get real, the housing shortage is a living misery for millions in this country and if you don't have the heart to understand that, I'm not going to bleed for your trees. Carl Bugenhagen

5:11pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Whitedot says...

Carl Bugenhagen wrote:
Build the houses. SaveHove might want to bus the poor out of their own neighbourhoods but who cares, people need places to live. Ban buy to let, give second homes 8 times council tax and let the dispossessed of this nation have one ounce of security in their unstable, shorthold tenancy lives. Yeah woods are great but get real, the housing shortage is a living misery for millions in this country and if you don't have the heart to understand that, I'm not going to bleed for your trees.
I agree, unfettered buy to let has destroyed the housing market as it was once known by artificially, temporarily inflating prices. I'm actually incredulous that some cretins are still buying, albeit in vastly reduced numbers.
[quote][p][bold]Carl Bugenhagen[/bold] wrote: Build the houses. SaveHove might want to bus the poor out of their own neighbourhoods but who cares, people need places to live. Ban buy to let, give second homes 8 times council tax and let the dispossessed of this nation have one ounce of security in their unstable, shorthold tenancy lives. Yeah woods are great but get real, the housing shortage is a living misery for millions in this country and if you don't have the heart to understand that, I'm not going to bleed for your trees.[/p][/quote]I agree, unfettered buy to let has destroyed the housing market as it was once known by artificially, temporarily inflating prices. I'm actually incredulous that some cretins are still buying, albeit in vastly reduced numbers. Whitedot

5:20pm Mon 15 Mar 10

tombraider59 says...

saveHOVE wrote:
It is utterly despicable to destroy Titmore Woods - beyond madness. There is not the infrastructure in the form of hospital capacity or schools or quality of life for existing residents even anywhere along the south coast. Why is the south of England having to put up with profound overdevelopment when the north of England is neglected and left to rot? What kind of country is this that sees ancient woodland as disposable? Or any woodland for that matter....
I'm with you on this one saveHOVE. I agree with everything you say - well done!
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: It is utterly despicable to destroy Titmore Woods - beyond madness. There is not the infrastructure in the form of hospital capacity or schools or quality of life for existing residents even anywhere along the south coast. Why is the south of England having to put up with profound overdevelopment when the north of England is neglected and left to rot? What kind of country is this that sees ancient woodland as disposable? Or any woodland for that matter....[/p][/quote]I'm with you on this one saveHOVE. I agree with everything you say - well done! tombraider59

5:31pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Lil says...

Well this is a surprising decision, but one I agree with.

I assumed the councillors would ignore everything and agree it on a nod but it seems not for once, good outcome. There is less precious land that can be developed, which doesn't have features of historical interest.

There just isn't the infrastructure in Worthing to support all these new homes and the sooner central govt. stops setting targets, the better. These targets need local knowledge and local representation.
Well this is a surprising decision, but one I agree with. I assumed the councillors would ignore everything and agree it on a nod but it seems not for once, good outcome. There is less precious land that can be developed, which doesn't have features of historical interest. There just isn't the infrastructure in Worthing to support all these new homes and the sooner central govt. stops setting targets, the better. These targets need local knowledge and local representation. Lil

6:26pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Big Nasty says...

Carl Bugenhagen wrote:
Build the houses. SaveHove might want to bus the poor out of their own neighbourhoods but who cares, people need places to live. Ban buy to let, give second homes 8 times council tax and let the dispossessed of this nation have one ounce of security in their unstable, shorthold tenancy lives. Yeah woods are great but get real, the housing shortage is a living misery for millions in this country and if you don't have the heart to understand that, I'm not going to bleed for your trees.
Sorry but you obviously don't know the bigger picture, it's not just about woodland, it is a massive 1250 house development with NO extra infrastructure to cope or extra police to ensure the safety of the people, and it was to be built on an area that is regularly flooded, well done to all those that took part in the protests and organised the campaign against this ridiculous development!.
[quote][p][bold]Carl Bugenhagen[/bold] wrote: Build the houses. SaveHove might want to bus the poor out of their own neighbourhoods but who cares, people need places to live. Ban buy to let, give second homes 8 times council tax and let the dispossessed of this nation have one ounce of security in their unstable, shorthold tenancy lives. Yeah woods are great but get real, the housing shortage is a living misery for millions in this country and if you don't have the heart to understand that, I'm not going to bleed for your trees.[/p][/quote]Sorry but you obviously don't know the bigger picture, it's not just about woodland, it is a massive 1250 house development with NO extra infrastructure to cope or extra police to ensure the safety of the people, and it was to be built on an area that is regularly flooded, well done to all those that took part in the protests and organised the campaign against this ridiculous development!. Big Nasty

7:16pm Mon 15 Mar 10

EroThraX says...

saveHOVE wrote:
It is utterly despicable to destroy Titmore Woods - beyond madness.

There is not the infrastructure in the form of hospital capacity or schools or quality of life for existing residents even anywhere along the south coast. Why is the south of England having to put up with profound overdevelopment when the north of England is neglected and left to rot?

What kind of country is this that sees ancient woodland as disposable? Or any woodland for that matter....
I guess that's why the plans included the development of a new school.
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: It is utterly despicable to destroy Titmore Woods - beyond madness. There is not the infrastructure in the form of hospital capacity or schools or quality of life for existing residents even anywhere along the south coast. Why is the south of England having to put up with profound overdevelopment when the north of England is neglected and left to rot? What kind of country is this that sees ancient woodland as disposable? Or any woodland for that matter....[/p][/quote]I guess that's why the plans included the development of a new school. EroThraX

7:20pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Big Nasty says...

EroThraX wrote:
saveHOVE wrote:
It is utterly despicable to destroy Titmore Woods - beyond madness.

There is not the infrastructure in the form of hospital capacity or schools or quality of life for existing residents even anywhere along the south coast. Why is the south of England having to put up with profound overdevelopment when the north of England is neglected and left to rot?

What kind of country is this that sees ancient woodland as disposable? Or any woodland for that matter....
I guess that's why the plans included the development of a new school.
Trust me in the original plans there was NO plan for a school!.
[quote][p][bold]EroThraX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: It is utterly despicable to destroy Titmore Woods - beyond madness. There is not the infrastructure in the form of hospital capacity or schools or quality of life for existing residents even anywhere along the south coast. Why is the south of England having to put up with profound overdevelopment when the north of England is neglected and left to rot? What kind of country is this that sees ancient woodland as disposable? Or any woodland for that matter....[/p][/quote]I guess that's why the plans included the development of a new school.[/p][/quote]Trust me in the original plans there was NO plan for a school!. Big Nasty

8:20pm Mon 15 Mar 10

saveHOVE says...

Oh my.....I'm so pleased to now read of the planning refusal for this application. However, the reasons for refusal are what matter most and if someone could let email these reasons to savehove@yahoo.co.uk I would be really grateful to have the information.

The applicants can and almost certainly will go to Appeal on this unless the reasons for refusal are untouchable. Planning Inspectors don't have voters to consider - only planning law, planning policy documents and serious and proveable evidence.

And Carl Bugenhagen, I entirely understand your p.o.v. Property has been a gambling chip in this country and a tradeable commodity used for making money instead of homes for some 30 years now making rents unaffordable.

But just as locals here are forced out of the area to find housing elsewhere, so locals up north are forced out of their areas - to find work in the south. I would not want northern forest demolished for housing EITHER!

Shovelling the whole of British life into the southern coastal strip below London has to stop. It's just wrong.

Mega-congratulations to those who fought for Titmore Woods and may today's Planning Committee judgment in Worthing STICK!
Oh my.....I'm so pleased to now read of the planning refusal for this application. However, the reasons for refusal are what matter most and if someone could let email these reasons to savehove@yahoo.co.uk I would be really grateful to have the information. The applicants can and almost certainly will go to Appeal on this unless the reasons for refusal are untouchable. Planning Inspectors don't have voters to consider - only planning law, planning policy documents and serious and proveable evidence. And Carl Bugenhagen, I entirely understand your p.o.v. Property has been a gambling chip in this country and a tradeable commodity used for making money instead of homes for some 30 years now making rents unaffordable. But just as locals here are forced out of the area to find housing elsewhere, so locals up north are forced out of their areas - to find work in the south. I would not want northern forest demolished for housing EITHER! Shovelling the whole of British life into the southern coastal strip below London has to stop. It's just wrong. Mega-congratulations to those who fought for Titmore Woods and may today's Planning Committee judgment in Worthing STICK! saveHOVE

8:52pm Mon 15 Mar 10

cheezburger says...

I havent really been following this story, but im a bit confused by the protestors booing the councillors. Evidently the councillors did look at all the facts and came to a conclusion that the protestors liked, so really there was no need to try and bully or harangue them was there? I hope they apologised when the verdict was announced.
I havent really been following this story, but im a bit confused by the protestors booing the councillors. Evidently the councillors did look at all the facts and came to a conclusion that the protestors liked, so really there was no need to try and bully or harangue them was there? I hope they apologised when the verdict was announced. cheezburger

9:06pm Mon 15 Mar 10

sparky_2004 says...

cheezburger wrote:
I havent really been following this story, but im a bit confused by the protestors booing the councillors. Evidently the councillors did look at all the facts and came to a conclusion that the protestors liked, so really there was no need to try and bully or harangue them was there? I hope they apologised when the verdict was announced.
If you had been there, you would have seen the council being applauded for taking the right decision at the end, despite council officer James Appleton trying to steer them in the opposite direction!

However, had there not been such vociferous objections during the meeting, then it's most likely that the planning committee would have just toed the official line and voted in favour..amazing what can happen when the decision makers are confronted by those whom they are supposed to represent. I salute the residents of Worthing for coming together to oppose this misconceived development!
[quote][p][bold]cheezburger[/bold] wrote: I havent really been following this story, but im a bit confused by the protestors booing the councillors. Evidently the councillors did look at all the facts and came to a conclusion that the protestors liked, so really there was no need to try and bully or harangue them was there? I hope they apologised when the verdict was announced.[/p][/quote]If you had been there, you would have seen the council being applauded for taking the right decision at the end, despite council officer James Appleton trying to steer them in the opposite direction! However, had there not been such vociferous objections during the meeting, then it's most likely that the planning committee would have just toed the official line and voted in favour..amazing what can happen when the decision makers are confronted by those whom they are supposed to represent. I salute the residents of Worthing for coming together to oppose this misconceived development! sparky_2004

10:51pm Mon 15 Mar 10

Allan says...

Perhaps the right decision but why daub paint on the doors to the building? It will now cost Council money to clean it off.
Oh hang on, the tree protestors don't pay Council Tax in this democratic town so the rest of us will have to pay their share and for the extra security and Police.
Code word? 'Free-life' No kidding & how ironic
Perhaps the right decision but why daub paint on the doors to the building? It will now cost Council money to clean it off. Oh hang on, the tree protestors don't pay Council Tax in this democratic town so the rest of us will have to pay their share and for the extra security and Police. Code word? 'Free-life' No kidding & how ironic Allan

11:42pm Mon 15 Mar 10

MoreMikey says...

If SaveHOVE cares so deeply about these woods, he would do well to get the name right: it's Titnore, with an "N", not Titmore. Me thinks he doesn't really care......and neither does the Argus, 'cos they didn't get it right either.
If SaveHOVE cares so deeply about these woods, he would do well to get the name right: it's Titnore, with an "N", not Titmore. Me thinks he doesn't really care......and neither does the Argus, 'cos they didn't get it right either. MoreMikey

12:53am Tue 16 Mar 10

Allan says...

Mikey, perhaps he is a Sun reader lol
Mikey, perhaps he is a Sun reader lol Allan

7:17am Tue 16 Mar 10

ABC1 says...

As Falmer stadium proves, if the developers get this to a planning enquiry, then planning law/regulations go out of the window. It will be down to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Then it becomes a political decision, as they are not bound to follow their own rules. If the stadium can be built on AONB, then Titnore Woods are fair game. Once you work out the political benefits to the Govt. of building/not building, you'll begin to see which way the decision might go.
As Falmer stadium proves, if the developers get this to a planning enquiry, then planning law/regulations go out of the window. It will be down to the discretion of the Secretary of State. Then it becomes a political decision, as they are not bound to follow their own rules. If the stadium can be built on AONB, then Titnore Woods are fair game. Once you work out the political benefits to the Govt. of building/not building, you'll begin to see which way the decision might go. ABC1

8:34am Tue 16 Mar 10

Made In Sussex says...

This is the right decision, not just because it saves an ancient woods, it spares one of the last few remaining breaks in the urban sprawl along the coast. Any fool could see from the plan this developmentwas just an ill thought out bolt on to the already sprawling and souless Durrington urbanistaion.
-
Also it was done without any real consideration and action regarding the A27 through Worthing which is alreday a long standing problem.
-
Good decision. BTW, ban buy to let?, Carl you are really a misinformed fool!
This is the right decision, not just because it saves an ancient woods, it spares one of the last few remaining breaks in the urban sprawl along the coast. Any fool could see from the plan this developmentwas just an ill thought out bolt on to the already sprawling and souless Durrington urbanistaion. - Also it was done without any real consideration and action regarding the A27 through Worthing which is alreday a long standing problem. - Good decision. BTW, ban buy to let?, Carl you are really a misinformed fool! Made In Sussex

9:42am Tue 16 Mar 10

Carl Bugenhagen says...

So you'll be a landlord then. If you can't justify what you say, it's just childish namecalling. Here's some reading for you. http://www.pricedout
.org.uk/
600,000+ houses have been taken out of the market through buy-to-let, which only exacerbates income inequality and all the social problems and misery that goes with it. You clearly care more about trees than you do about people.
So you'll be a landlord then. If you can't justify what you say, it's just childish namecalling. Here's some reading for you. http://www.pricedout .org.uk/ 600,000+ houses have been taken out of the market through buy-to-let, which only exacerbates income inequality and all the social problems and misery that goes with it. You clearly care more about trees than you do about people. Carl Bugenhagen

9:53am Tue 16 Mar 10

tombraider59 says...

Excellent result!!!!

Watch out for the appeal though!!
Excellent result!!!! Watch out for the appeal though!! tombraider59

10:14am Tue 16 Mar 10

saveHOVE says...

ABC1 is right about the power of The Secretary of State to overrule absolutely everything. It happens rarely but it does happen - Falmer Stadium-for-votes being a classic example.

Perhaps everyone will think about this when it comes to the upcoming General Election. At least one party has declared that the housing targets will be scrapped. That one move alone would make a world of difference to the power of Council planning officers when it comes to determining applications and wanting to refuse them.

Housing Targets have been a terrible and overbearing central government compulsion that has undue influence.
ABC1 is right about the power of The Secretary of State to overrule absolutely everything. It happens rarely but it does happen - Falmer Stadium-for-votes being a classic example. Perhaps everyone will think about this when it comes to the upcoming General Election. At least one party has declared that the housing targets will be scrapped. That one move alone would make a world of difference to the power of Council planning officers when it comes to determining applications and wanting to refuse them. Housing Targets have been a terrible and overbearing central government compulsion that has undue influence. saveHOVE

10:56am Tue 16 Mar 10

arthbutt says...

saveHOVE wrote:
Oh my.....I'm so pleased to now read of the planning refusal for this application. However, the reasons for refusal are what matter most and if someone could let email these reasons to savehove@yahoo.co.uk I would be really grateful to have the information. The applicants can and almost certainly will go to Appeal on this unless the reasons for refusal are untouchable. Planning Inspectors don't have voters to consider - only planning law, planning policy documents and serious and proveable evidence. And Carl Bugenhagen, I entirely understand your p.o.v. Property has been a gambling chip in this country and a tradeable commodity used for making money instead of homes for some 30 years now making rents unaffordable. But just as locals here are forced out of the area to find housing elsewhere, so locals up north are forced out of their areas - to find work in the south. I would not want northern forest demolished for housing EITHER! Shovelling the whole of British life into the southern coastal strip below London has to stop. It's just wrong. Mega-congratulations to those who fought for Titmore Woods and may today's Planning Committee judgment in Worthing STICK!
Titnore Woods are an important green lung - don't forget they generate oxygen, store carbon, play host to a spectacular variety of wildlife, provide us with raw materials and shelter, inspire our imaginations and our creativity.

The almost magical, mystical quality of woods makes them a great place for relaxation and recreation.

Having lived and worked in the South all my life (now in my 50s), it is distressing to see how much we have lost to concrete. Hopefully SEEDA had nothing to do with this...

Yes, we need housing but not at cost of losing assets like these. Hopefully a new government will focus building plans into the midlands and north - building on ancient woodland has to be a criminal act.
[quote][p][bold]saveHOVE[/bold] wrote: Oh my.....I'm so pleased to now read of the planning refusal for this application. However, the reasons for refusal are what matter most and if someone could let email these reasons to savehove@yahoo.co.uk I would be really grateful to have the information. The applicants can and almost certainly will go to Appeal on this unless the reasons for refusal are untouchable. Planning Inspectors don't have voters to consider - only planning law, planning policy documents and serious and proveable evidence. And Carl Bugenhagen, I entirely understand your p.o.v. Property has been a gambling chip in this country and a tradeable commodity used for making money instead of homes for some 30 years now making rents unaffordable. But just as locals here are forced out of the area to find housing elsewhere, so locals up north are forced out of their areas - to find work in the south. I would not want northern forest demolished for housing EITHER! Shovelling the whole of British life into the southern coastal strip below London has to stop. It's just wrong. Mega-congratulations to those who fought for Titmore Woods and may today's Planning Committee judgment in Worthing STICK![/p][/quote]Titnore Woods are an important green lung - don't forget they generate oxygen, store carbon, play host to a spectacular variety of wildlife, provide us with raw materials and shelter, inspire our imaginations and our creativity. The almost magical, mystical quality of woods makes them a great place for relaxation and recreation. Having lived and worked in the South all my life (now in my 50s), it is distressing to see how much we have lost to concrete. Hopefully SEEDA had nothing to do with this... Yes, we need housing but not at cost of losing assets like these. Hopefully a new government will focus building plans into the midlands and north - building on ancient woodland has to be a criminal act. arthbutt

12:35pm Tue 16 Mar 10

tilburyre says...

A hollow victory - it will go to whatever the DoE is now called who may well overturn the decision (which happens a lot more often than saveHove says). If they do the council will have to pay the developer's not inconsiderable costs. Virtually all of Titnore Woods is private property so those waxing so lyrical about them have, presumably, been trespassing.

And nobody living in West Durrington has any right to complain. Some of us remember the protests against your homes being built.
A hollow victory - it will go to whatever the DoE is now called who may well overturn the decision (which happens a lot more often than saveHove says). If they do the council will have to pay the developer's not inconsiderable costs. Virtually all of Titnore Woods is private property so those waxing so lyrical about them have, presumably, been trespassing. And nobody living in West Durrington has any right to complain. Some of us remember the protests against your homes being built. tilburyre

11:53am Wed 17 Mar 10

Made In Sussex says...

Yes Carl I'm a landlord so what, i' doing zip wrong. FYI I lived in my property for 10 years before renting it out,and my tenant actually doesnt have a desire to buy even if they could, but hey to keep you happy I'll turf them out from a perfectly good home and feel ashamed because I'm somehow responsible for the housing situation
-
Even without buy to let there is still as shortage of homes, its a more complex situation than you like to make out, for example higher demand is due to more people living alone.
Yes Carl I'm a landlord so what, i' doing zip wrong. FYI I lived in my property for 10 years before renting it out,and my tenant actually doesnt have a desire to buy even if they could, but hey to keep you happy I'll turf them out from a perfectly good home and feel ashamed because I'm somehow responsible for the housing situation - Even without buy to let there is still as shortage of homes, its a more complex situation than you like to make out, for example higher demand is due to more people living alone. Made In Sussex

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree