Kingswood Development: Community Raises Major Concerns as Early Plans Take Shape

A cross‑community meeting held on 28th July 2026 brought together representatives from Our Place — the organisation behind the proposed Kingswood development — and local voices from Pulborough, Nutbourne, West Chiltington and neighbouring parishes. Although informal in nature, the discussion offered the clearest insight yet into the developer’s intentions and the scale of change potentially facing the area.

Kingswood is one of the largest strategic development proposals ever considered in this part of West Sussex. With around 3,200 homes, schools, employment space and extensive green infrastructure planned over a 20–30-year build‑out, the scheme would reshape the landscape east of the A29 near Adversane. The site is currently proposed for allocation in Horsham District Council’s emerging Local Plan.

This meeting was positioned as an opportunity for community representatives to hear the developer’s latest thinking and raise early concerns. While many details remain under consideration, the conversation highlighted both the ambition of the project and the significant unresolved issues that residents believe must be addressed.

A Long‑Term Masterplan, And Not a Quick Build

Our Place emphasised that they are “a long‑term landowner and master developer, rather than a traditional volume housebuilder.” Their stated intention is to remain involved throughout the life of the project, overseeing delivery with multiple builders rather than exiting once planning permission is secured.

The first phase — approximately 315/320 homes — is expected to be delivered with Places for People, a major national housing and social enterprise provider.

The developer repeatedly stressed that Kingswood is not a short‑term commercial opportunity, but a generational project intended to create a new community with its own identity, infrastructure and employment base.

Housing: Affordability at the Heart of Local Concerns

Housing dominated much of the discussion. Community representatives highlighted the widening gap between local wages and house prices, and the increasing difficulty young people and essential workers face in remaining within the area.

The developer acknowledged this challenge, stating that “if local people were unable to benefit from Kingswood, they would regard that as a failure of the project.”

Potential solutions discussed included:

• Community Land Trust (CLT) homes
• Increased rental provision
• Discount market housing
• Local‑first sales periods
• Partnerships with community housing organisations

However, no commitments were made beyond existing policy requirements. Attendees stressed that affordability must be meaningful, not nominal.

Schools, Facilities and Infrastructure Promises

Our Place presented Kingswood as an infrastructure‑led development, proposing:

• Two primary schools
• One secondary school
• SEND provision
• Community buildings and sports facilities
• Healthcare land
• Open spaces, recreation areas and potential library/community hub facilities

The secondary school proposal drew particular interest, with the developer suggesting it could relieve wider regional pressure rather than solely serving Kingswood residents.

Questions centred on timing — whether schools and facilities would arrive early enough to support new households. The developer stated that delivery would be tied to housing occupations through legal agreements, preventing later phases from progressing without key infrastructure.

Traffic: The Community’s Overwhelming Concern

Traffic was the most contentious issue raised. Representatives voiced strong concerns about:

• Existing congestion on the A29
• Pressure on Pulborough’s road network
• The Blacksmith Arms junction
• Road safety and bottlenecks
• Impacts of emergency diversions
• Cumulative effects of other planned developments

The developer did not deny the scale of impact, openly accepting that 3,200 homes will generate significant additional vehicle movements.

Mitigation ideas included:

• New walking and cycling routes
• Improved bus services
• Local facilities reducing travel demand
• Highway upgrades
• New road infrastructure
• Safeguarding land for potential future rail improvements

Despite this, many attendees remained unconvinced that the traffic modelling fully reflects real‑world conditions. A dedicated transport‑focused meeting with specialists was proposed.

Railway Bridge and Station Safeguarding

The concept of a new railway bridge prompted further questions about traffic flow and impacts on existing crossings. Our Place confirmed they are safeguarding land for a potential future station but stressed that they are not promising a station, noting that delivery would depend entirely on Network Rail and train operators.

Park‑and‑ride concepts have also been floated for the safeguarded land.

Water, Sewage and Environmental Pressures

Concerns about water and sewage infrastructure were raised repeatedly. Attendees questioned how existing systems — already under strain — could cope with thousands of new homes.

Residents present pointed out existing issues within the area and questioned how local infrastructure could cope with thousands of additional homes.

Our Place stated they are working with Southern Water and have factored utility requirements into planning, but residents emphasised that upgrades must be delivered before homes are occupied.

Environmental commitments were also discussed, including:

• Protection of Ancient Woodland
• Avoiding flood‑prone areas
• Biodiversity Net Gain
• Green corridors and nature parks
• Community orchards and allotments
• Wildlife‑friendly building features such as swift bricks
• Local environmental groups were identified as key future stakeholders.

Economic Impact: Opportunity or Competition?

The developer argued that Kingswood could become a significant employment centre, with retail, commercial and light industrial space planned. Some attendees questioned whether this could draw activity away from existing centres such as Pulborough, especially if business space is subsidised or offered at lower cost.

Our Place responded that increased population would also generate more customers for existing businesses, though concerns remain about potential displacement.

Key Takeaways

The meeting was constructive, but major concerns remain unresolved. Community representatives highlighted:

• Traffic and transport impacts
• Water and sewage capacity
• Genuine affordability for local people
• Effects on existing communities and services
• Governance of a large new settlement
• The developer maintained that:
• Infrastructure will be delivered alongside development
• Community benefits could be substantial
• Environmental protections will be built in

Engagement with local groups will continue.

Next Steps

Our Place confirmed that further public consultation events are planned, detailed proposals are being prepared, and specialist discussions — particularly around transport — will take place. Parish councils and community organisations will continue to be involved as plans evolve.

While the meeting provided valuable insight into the developer’s intentions, many residents’ concerns remain unresolved. As the Kingswood proposal moves toward formal consultation, continued scrutiny, transparency and community involvement will be essential.

Pulborough Post will continue to monitor developments and will provide regular updates as more information becomes available.