PLANS for up to 52 homes in the shadow of the Shoreham flyover have been refused by Adur District Council two years after they were first submitted.

The hybrid application, from Cobbetts Developments Ltd, asked for outline permission for the three-storey homes and full permission to realign part of the Adur Tidal Wall flood defence – an idea branded “madness” by objectors.

The proposed development, on a parcel of grazing land bordered by the river Adur, the A27 and Steyning Road, included 30 per cent which were homes classed as affordable.

Speaking at the meeting on Monday evening, objector Ann Cox told members that the site “regularly floods during high tides and heavy rain”.

Mrs Cox added: “The houses would be too near the flyover where, at peak times, the traffic is nose to tail and air quality would be poor.

“All the time it would be noisy.

“The (affordable) housing would no doubt be built nearest the flyover. 

“The houses which are proposed at three storeys are too high. None of this is good for children’s health.”

Her concerns about road safety in the area were shared by some councillors.

Brian Coomber (Con, St Nicolas) said: “Here we have a development which I think is going to be dangerous to access, whichever way you look at it, because the road bends in a very nasty way, people come off the main roundabout at extreme speed.

“I think this is totally in the wrong place and is not convenient at all to people who may live there.”

Stephen Chipp (Con, Southwick Green) agreed, adding: “Here we have an area of land which can be developed – but should it be?”

Planning officers recommended that the application be refused because the homes would be outside the built-up area boundary and no need had been shown for why they should be built in the countryside.

They were also not happy with the impact of the homes or the tidal wall changes on the area.

A report to the committee said: “We feel that the limited benefits caused by this development are outweighed by the harm.”

Members agreed and the application was refused unanimously.

The application first went to the planning committee in July 2017, where it was deferred because the council was still waiting for an inspector’s report into its proposed Local Plan, which was adopted at the end of that year.