FRUSTRATION and disappointment over the continued delay of the £5.8 million Nappers Wood housing redevelopment in Fernhurst were expressed this week, as a £1.7 million shortfall still has not been met.

Residents have been waiting six years for redevelopment of the 110 houses on the site. This week they heard that the scheme may have to go back to the drawing board.

Nappers Wood is the biggest brown field site in the village and the scheme would be one of the largest housing developments in the area. The project is run by Chichester District Community Housing, a non-profit association which expected the go-ahead in August.

But CDCH has failed to plug the funding gap, having been turned down by the Housing Corporation.

Chichester District Council will meet next month to decide if it will provide the money, but either way residents are facing another winter in the homes, many of which have damp and condensation.

The Nappers Wood steering committee meeting on Mondy was attended by eight residents, two Chichester district councillors John Mitchell and Andrew Moncrieff, Fernhurst parish councillor Sandy Livingstone and Heather Grant CDCH operations director.

Local resident and chairman of the steering group Graham Innes said:ÒItÕs a great disappointment to us all that having gone along with the expectation of something positive at the end we now have to go back to the drawing board due to the shortfall. There is a lot of blame directed at the council, and some to the company from people who believe they were misled.Ó

The project was originally intended to start in April 2003, but if the money does not come through Mr Innes believes it could be pushed back to late next year.

John Mitchell said: ÒCDCH was turned down by the Housing Corporation and the final decision has not been made by the district council. It doesnÕt look too good because the council is short of money.

ÒThere are many sad stories about what the lack of decision is doing to ordinary peopleÕs lives.Ó

Even if the council provides the money, Mr Mitchell believes the consultation process will have to restart.

ÒIf the money provided is less than the total, or if they get nothing at all, the options will have to be put back to the residents again. Ó

CDCH carried out extensive consultation on the project. Four options were provided and although total redevelopment of the site was the most expensive, it was also the most popular with residents.

ÒThere are two ways of looking at it,Ó Mr Mitchell said. ÒIf they hadnÕt considered the financially sound option that provided the best houses, then we wouldnÕt be in the mess we are now. But, on the other hand itÕs good that they should have tried.Ó

CDCHÕs Heather Grant said: ÒRepresentatives from CDC and CDCH have pursued the possibility of the funding gap being met by the housing corporation. While all agree that redevelopment would provide sustainable homes for more people, Housing Corporation regulations require local authorities to make financial provision for the regeneration of estates as part of any transfer agreement.Ó

ÒFinancial provision to repair and modernise the defective ÔCornishÕ properties was made as part of the transfer agreement between CDC and CDCH,Ó said Mrs Grant.

ÒThe allowance is insufficient to enable the company to redevelop all the concrete Cornish properties. Replacing the existing buildings with new homes is the preferred way forward by both the company and the local community.Ó

CDCH made a direct request to the council for additional finance on September 17. The companyÕs request is due to be considered on November 12. In the meantime, Mr Livingstone is organising a meeting for residents to talk about their concerns on Thursday, October 24, at 7 pm in Fernhurst School.