Hands off our English countryside!

By August 25, 2014February 18th, 2021No Comments

Westbourne villagers fight for green field ‘oasis’

16 August 2014

A FIELD ‘saved for future generations’ has once again been earmarked for the development of 16 new homes.

More than 60 Westbourne residents have objected to plans to build on land north of Long Copse Lane.

Previous plans to build 22 homes on the same land were thrown out after a three-day inquiry last year, with the planning inspector arguing the proposal would result in ‘considerable harm to the character and appearance of the village’.

“I was quite shocked to see a new application from the same developer for this site,” said Westbourne resident Paul Hawkins,

“Following the dismissal of the appeal, it was my understanding the field was saved ‘for future generations’.”

Sussex Police and Chichester Harbour Conservancy have both been consulted on the plans, which were submitted to the district council by developers Southcott Homes.

A spokesman from the conservancy said: “We would seek the securing of appropriate mitigation to address the likely increase in recreational disturbance.”

Residents have also voiced concerns about flooding in the village.

“The streets in the area around this field are often flooded and more housing will raise the water table even further,” said Thomas Webber, of River Street.

Joan Graham, clerk to Westbourne Parish Council, described Westbourne as an ‘oasis in an encroaching urban sprawl’.

She said the number of objections to the application ‘reveals the utter desperation and concern’ of 
many parishioners.

“It demonstrates the feeling for a necessity to fight to the bitter end, in order to maintain the unique and highly-prized character of Westbourne village before it is finally too late and gone forever.”

More than 150 new homes have been built in Westbourne in the past decade.

Resident Nigel Peake said the strategic gap between West Sussex and Hampshire had ‘almost disappeared’.

Chichester District Council planning officers have recommended the plans for approval.

The application will be determined by the planning committee on August 20. [The committee decided to visit the site and deferred their decision till this had been done.]

Chichester Observer


Dr Andrew Emerson

4:07 PM on 20/08/2014

It would be churlish to say ‘I told you so’ and so I won’t say it.

My opposition to building on any greenfield site and this one in particular is a matter of record. I attended and spoke at the last planning appeal hearing about building on this site on each of its three days.

At the last hearing the Conservative controlled Chichester District Council opposed the developers’ plans. This time they are supporting them.

I sincerely hope that the people of the beautiful village of Westbourne will remember the perfidy of the party whose name implies, as Whykerman infers, an interest in conservation, but whose practice so hypocritically belies it.

In the historic city of Chichester we face the same threat of excessive and unacceptable building of houses on our green belt, particularly on the western boundary.

In fact the same problem confronts local communities throughout the south east. Its root cause is the Coalition government’s unwillingness to put a stop to the mass immigration of hundreds of thousands of immigrants into our overcrowded island each and every year. This creates an excessive demand for land and housing, the supply of which is of course finite. One could hardly find a better example of an unsustainable policy or short-termism, the bane of democratic politics.

There will be both local elections and a general election next year. Will our people continue to feed the hand that bites them, or will they vote for an alternative candidate and party that are not a part of the Establishment and are not in the pocket of the money power?

For more information visit


7:29 PM on 24/08/2014

Oh dear. Another series of personal attacks.

Your party received 0.144% of the eligible vote in the 2013 Westbourne by-election. If you can describe that as playing with statistics and keep a straight face then you really have found your calling as a fifth rate wannabe politician.

I would like to ask you a serious question: what does it feel like to make Nick Griffin think you’re electoral poison?

Dr Andrew Emerson

1:12 PM on 25/08/2014

You wouldn’t know a serious question if you tripped over one by accident, vermin.

Stop living in the past, trying to comfort yourself with the results of long gone elections and methodologically flawed statistical extrapolations, and get a grip on the present, which is a rather better guide to the near future.

Have you ever been to Westbourne and seen the proposed site of these sixteen new houses?

Because the site is on high ground, if built, they would dominate the sky-line, looming over a number of existing properties in the roads below.

Parking is already an issue for the village, with its narrow roads and the village school and GP surgery are both oversubscribed.

And then there is the question of drainage and sewerage, which can only make the existing flooding problems of that neighbourhood even worse.

The view of the ancient church will be obstructed from a number of properties.

All in all, the effect on the character of a really lovely, quintessentially English, traditional community will be nothing but adverse.

I would love the Conservative controlled Chichester District Council to show some backbone and overrule the recommendation of their planning officers to approve the developers’ application. I would love them to prove me wrong by rejecting Southcott Homes’ application.

But I fear the Establishment politicians are spineless timeservers and placemen, who follow the path of least resistance. Rather like the rainwater running off the meadow between Long Copse Lane and North Street, upon which the developers want to pour their tons of concrete.

But doubtless you have no comment on this serious question, vermin. After all, by your ad hominem attacks on me, amusing though they may be, you hope to divert attention from such serious issues.


7:41 PM on 25/08/2014

As a member of a party that describes itself as neither left nor right wing you really do share some of the more predictable habits of the politicians you attack.

You fail to answer direct questions; you engage in personal attacks: “an abusive little creep” (were you quoting directly from Churchill there?); and you employ laughable cliches: ‘quintessentially English’, ‘spineless timeservers’, ‘traditional community’. What do these words mean? Nothing.

They are simply vague references to a non-existent golden age favoured by all right wing extremists. Build yourself a time machine and go back to the 1930s. Have a wander round a sanitorium [sic] or a workhouse, try not to get ill because you will have to pay for your treatment. Unemployed? Tough luck mate, your kids will just have to go hungry.

Also, thanks for describing me as ‘funny’. I really doubt your ability to assess humour but I’ll take it in good spirit.

Dr Andrew Emerson

2:27 PM on 27/08/2014

Just as I thought, you have no comment to make on the real issue of the bulldozing of our green countryside and its residents, the great majority of whom are English, by businessmen in pursuit of a quick profit.

Nor do you comment on the way in which the Conservative led Coalition government has enabled ‘developers’ to get away with this outrage, by passing an act of parliament last summer which further weakened the ability of local people and local councils successfully to resist such depredation.

In your first comment you referred to the Westbourne residents who are so bravely fighting the ruination of their village as ‘nimbys’, as if they were acting from purely selfish motives. Having met and spoken to a number of them I can assure you this is not the case. The beauty of Westbourne is there for all who visit it to appreciate and consequently the villagers’ fight is also the fight of all who value our countryside and heritage.

You could not be more wrong and display either your ignorance or your dishonesty when you say that Westbourne has no rural character and is barely a village. Perhaps you have never seen Westbourne. It has fields, hedgerows and trees of considerable age which provide a habitat for a great variety of plants and animals. There has been a permanent settlement on that spot since the Stone Age and historically it has marked the western boundary of Sussex, the ancient kingdom of the South Saxons.

What you say is either wrong or simply irrelevant. Anyone who looks at Patria’s manifesto on our web site,, can see for themselves that our policies are quite moderate and anything but extreme. It is the policies of the Lib-Lab-Con Establishment, which are ruining our country, that are extreme.

Certainly, it is impossible to re-create the past. But it is entirely possible and desirable to preserve the best of the present for future generations to enjoy.

It is for this the residents of Westbourne are fighting.


8:16 AM on 28/08/2014

Ha ha! Moderate party. Hilarious. Your whole manifesto is built on the language of race. You want to stop all immigration from “ethnic aliens” so as to preserve a pure white race. How is that moderate you maniac? Just to recap, you want to have an immigration policy that either means there is no immigration at all. Nothing. Or one that says white people can come in, but black people can’t. Don’t worry if they are more skilled, it doesn’t matter – they have different coloured skin, so can’t come in. If you think that’s a moderate immigration policy rather than an extreme right policy you are deluded. But you’re not deluded, you know that’s far right, but want [to] tap into people’s concerns about houses being built to push your own agenda and appear moderate.

Well it worked…..for 3 people of Westbourne. 3 people? Which family members were they? Well done – I could get 3 people of Westbourne to vote for me with a manifesto promising that the local shop will never run out of onions and that I’d get a big TV put up in the centre so that people could watch Strictly Come Dancing together….which are more credible policies than yours.

The countryside needs to be bulldozed. For far too long our problem has been cramming more and more people into existing towns and cities, where the infrastructure isn’t there to support it and cannot physically be expanded as the town is so crammed with houses, but NIMBYISM isn’t so prevalent so it’s easier to build. Build in the villages. Build entirely new towns and villages all over the existing countryside. At least they can be in areas where the schools can be made bigger and more amenities can subsequently be built. In cities that often isn’t possible – hence why it appears so overcrowded.

I haven’t seen the detailed plans and don’t know enough about whether this particular proposal is suitable, but 16 new homes in Westbourne appears at face value to be a perfectly sensible suggestion that will have virtually no impact on existing infrastructure and facilities – or indeed the countryside in the grand scheme of things.

Dr Andrew Emerson

2:53 PM on 28/08/2014

Most of Patria’s policies do not mention the word race.

But is it acceptable for Lib-Lab-Con to have policies which discriminate against the ethnic majority English, as they do, provided they do not mention the word race? No, it is not.

Patria’s policy on immigration does not unfairly discriminate against non-white people, since we will also put a stop to the immigration of Eastern Europeans, for example. The term ethnic alien means anyone who is not of British or Northern Irish ancestry.

You say ‘The countryside needs to be bulldozed’, yet according to you I am the ‘maniac’, albeit a maniac who is ‘not deluded’!

And why does our countryside need to be bulldozed? You don’t say, but it’s in order that the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who arrive in our country each and every year can have somewhere to live.

Well, if they stop coming then we will be able to save our countryside for future generations of our people to enjoy and also remain an ethnic majority in our own country, instead of becoming a persecuted ethnic minority.