"OUR worst nightmare has been realised" is the cry from Camelsdale residents who are up in arms over a controversial housing development being built on land at the back of their homes.
The housing development currently under construction on land at 24-26 Camelsdale Road, which backs onto Sturt Avenue and Orchard Close, is giving many nearby homeowners a headache.
They are concerned that the properties are being constructed far too close to theirs and will impinge on their light and privacy when the homes are completed.
As previously reported by The Herald, planning permission was granted last year for 21 homes to be built, which would include a social housing quota.
This was despite local residents in Orchard Close opposing numerous planning applications for the site over the last three years.
"We all went to the council meetings and gave our protests about the flooding, overcrowding and traffic issues, but the developers steamed ahead with it and got planning permission," said one local resident.
"We have leafleted everybody and we written to everyone we can think of. But it has all been approved by the council despite everyone's objections."
Janice Hopwood of number three Orchard Close said that she battled against the planning applications as she knew the houses would not benefit the area.
"We fought this off for years but it has still happened. It is our worst nightmare realised and there is nothing that we can do about it now," she said.
"I think that this would have happened no matter how hard we had fought. Along the way we thought we had had little victories but we look at the site now and there is no victory for us there.
"On Sturt Avenue there are already four houses up for sale and we can't say that it's not the site affecting them. They really have crammed them in."
Mrs Hopwood also pointed out that she is concerned that the local infrastructure, including the roads and schools, will not be able to cope.
"These houses are not going to do Camelsdale any favours and nothing in the area is so squashed on a site. Nothing in the area is selling at the moment anyway."
It has been claimed that a whole catalogue of problems have occurred while the houses have been under construction, including the contractors parking in resident parking areas, a digger knocking into the side of one of the properties near the new alleyway and concern over whether the social housing quota had been included on the site.
The residents also said they have suffered a lot of disruption while the building has been taking place from dust and noise.
"You can't actually go out in the garden during the day at all and our washing gets covered in dust," said one resident whose property backs on to the site.
"We knew there was going to be a lot of disruption but I don't think anyone realises how overlooked we would be and how much light would be taken from our gardens. Are we not entitled to privacy in our own house and garden?"
Because of this, some of the local residents are debating applying for a reduction in their rates or compensation from the council.
A local resident told The Herald that a main objection in fighting the application was the risk of flooding.
"The land was previously all gardens," said the resident. "The greater the density of the housing, the more you cover in concrete and the more the rain is just going to run off.
"The engineers have taken that on board I think and they have designed something to help hold the water back on the site and that is all very well and good.
"But what happens when the pipes get blocked by leaves in the autumn – who is responsible for its maintenance?"
Another main issue of contention is the parking provision. The development provides 1.5 spaces per dwelling with some off-street parking provided at the back of the site.
However, residents said that parking in the area is already tight, which will only be aggravated by the new development.
"This will be a busy road because of the type of families you are attracting – two-car families," said Mrs Hopwood.
"The access where you get out on to Camelsdale Road will lead to an accident there; it is just a matter of time."
The residents claimed that the council highways department first objected to access to the proposed development but that this now seems to have been ignored.
Another affected resident said that she is concerned that the view from her lounge is going to be replaced by a brick wall and she will no longer be able to see any sky from the window.
She also said that she is worried that the development will bring down the resale value of her property as it will suffer from a great loss of light.
"We are very unhappy as part of our sunlight has been taken away," she said. "Our view used to be green landscape and it is now high-density housing."
Some of the residents also said that they did not feel that such a development is needed in Camelsdale.
"The developers continued to resubmit planning applications until they got their way and the council gave in, which may be due to pressure from the government," said an anonymous local resident.
"It is taking away the countryside, which is the reason why people wanted to live here in the first place."
"It is because it is led by profit, it is nothing to do with improving the village of Camelsdale. It is just to do with making money and reaching government target," said another resident.
"The density that they have allowed to go through, to the councillors, it is just figures to put down on a piece of paper. They had no personal interest in this whatsoever.
"They know that we all objected, we had meetings where we objected strongly, and it still went through."
"We have lived here for 17 years and this application is almost driving us out of our home. It has been dropped in the middle of the village and has totally changed the character of the area so that it is not a village any more."
In a letter sent to the head of development and building control services in November last year, one resident said that a "more modest" development would be better suited to the site.
"Is there really such a need for this quantity of houses to be built on such a small plot? It's such a shame that maximum profit so often seems to be the deciding factor in these situations."
The head of development and building control services at Chichester District Council, Steve Carvell, responded to the residents' concerns.
"The district council has received a complaint regarding the siting of the new dwellings being constructed in Sturt Avenue, Camelsdale.
"This complaint is currently being investigated and officers will contact the complainant as soon as possible.
"In accordance with council policies, 30 per cent of the development is provided as affordable housing. In this case, that equates to six units on the site.
"As part of the approval of reserved matters, the developers negotiated a drainage strategy to reduce the risk of local flooding from surface and groundwater run-off and in January this year, the Environment Agency confirmed that the developers' strategy was satisfactory."
Mr Carvell also said that he did not know if the local residents are able to make a claim for compensation or a reduction in council tax as a result of the development.