CAMPAIGNERS against a controversial Camelsdale housing development finally had reason to celebrate when an 18-home plan was unanimously rejected by Chichester District Council on Wednesday.

The outline application, for new houses on land to the rear of 26 to 46 Camelsdale Road and 20 Sturt Avenue, was thrown out because of flooding and traffic problems.

Angela Boyle, from Orchard Close, has spent the last year fighting against developer SC Properties' plans, and was delighted with the result.

"Obviously we're pleased. People have put in a lot of effort and worked really hard," she told The Herald. "We had an amazing reaction from the villagers."

Eighty five local residents wrote letters of objection, and two petitions were collected, one with 155 signatures, the other with 12.

Among the concerns listed were; over development, loss of trees, wildlife and open spaces, lack of parking, highway danger, traffic congestion, poor access and visibility, and that the development is out of character with the surrounding area.

In July, 25 residents attended a Fernhurst Parish Council planning meeting to voice their concerns.

The parish council recommended outright rejection on the grounds of traffic danger at the junction of Moorfield Road with Camelsdale Road, lack of flooding guidance and that the backyard development would be "un-neighbourly".

Lynchmere Parish Council, Waverley Borough Council and Thames Water have all expressed their concerns about the proposal.

A report from planning officers, given to the committee which made the final decision, recommended refusal on the grounds of traffic and of flooding.

However, it also stated that 18 houses could be accommodated on the site without harming the area, something with which Mrs Boyle strongly disagreed.

"The character of the area is something we hold close to our hearts, although we know that doesn't hold much weight with the council," she said, "which is why we argued on technical grounds of flooding and highway risk. Eighteen houses would destroy the character of the area."

Mrs Boyle said that comments were made during the meeting that in principle the area might not be suitable to be developed at all.

However, despite the outcome, Mrs Boyle warned against being complacent.

"The battle is won but the war is not over," she said. "We don't want to be complacent, as the developer could resubmit the plans or this could go to appeal."