The curse of Patching Village

Feelings have run high in Patching village, a cluster of pretty cottages set in leafy lanes near Worthing, since property developer Joseph Sullivan arrived in the area in the late Nineties after Britain's oldest merchant bank, Barings, went into receivership.

Following the activities of rogue trader Nick Leeson, the bank had to offload its assets, including the 247-acre Patching Estate, with Patching Farm and Patching Pond.

It was sold to Oakring Estates, a trust company registered in Jersey.

It brought in property developer Mr Sullivan, 75, as a consultant.

Mr Sullivan, who has homes in Southampton and Australia, upset villagers, including members of the Patcham Village Society, when he blocked a footpath across land at Patching Farm, putting a locked gate across the path through the farmyard.

The parish was preparing an application to have it reopened when it was noted that another path - through the farmyard and at the centre of the current dispute - was not on the definitive map of the Local Plan.

People in the village claimed the route had been used since beyond living memory.

West Sussex County Council drew up plans for a four-metre wide footpath which would be extended to eight metres wide in some places.

It created a storm. Mr Sullivan, representing Oakring, lodged an objection saying such a wide path would encourage 4x4 vehicles.

Another objection was received from former county councillor Bill Cantello, a minor shareholder in Cantello Developments, a company which bought Patching farmyard from Mr Sullivan.

As tempers frayed, the battle over a few square metres of land culminated in a two-day public inquiry held last month at the Avisford Park Hotel, near Arundel.

The county council was determined to stick to the eight-metre wide route, despite most villagers saying they would be happy with any path, even one just two metres wide.

The residents of the 38 houses in the village are awaiting the result of the inquiry, expected by the end of May.

Many villagers believe Mr Sullivan and the Cantello company have plans to develop Patching.

Cantello applied for planning permission to build four houses but the proposals were rejected by the council in April last year.

Meanwhile, smaller developments which did not need permission have sprung up. A barn has been built, a footpath diverted a few feet to the left and a new concrete entrance built to a field.

Villagers think Mr Sullivan and Cantello have bigger plans.

One, Beverley Bacon, said: "It has got very personal.

"Everyone in the village would be quite happy for a two-metre wide footpath. Historically there has always been a path. The Duke of Norfolk gave it as a footpath.

"I've heard stories of it being used as far back as 1913 for people coming from other villages to the church."

Mrs Bacon, 63, and her husband Ed won a court battle against Mr Sullivan last year after he disputed ownership of a 3ft-wide strip of land bordering their home.

She said many in the village feared Mr Sullivan possessed special powers and had placed the village under a gipsy curse.

She said: "I heard Mr Sullivan had put a curse on the whole village. If you believe in it you worry about it. If you don't then you don't worry about it. Personally, I don't believe in it.

"I know there was an elderly lady who was worried about the curse and he lifted it from her."

Robert Metcalfe, chairman of Patching Parish Council, said: "I've only heard about the curse through others. I don't know whether it has or hasn't been put on the village.

"I don't mind either way. All we want is the footpath through the farmyard put on the definitive map. It doesn't matter about the width. We just want a public right of way.

"We feel Patching is very unusual in Sussex for having a farm and a church at its centre and only houses around it. It's a traditional and typical Sussex village.

"The development of the farmyard would detract from that. That's the view of the parish council and almost all parishioners."

Mr Sullivan, who declined to comment, has also been in discussions about selling Patching Pond, which has undergone extensive conservation work, including dredging to improve fishing.

In August last year, Mr Sullivan insisted Oakring had no plans to develop Patching.

He told The Argus he planned to retire soon and claimed sour grapes were at the heart of the dispute.

He said Oakring was merely attempting to update facilities in the village to cater for visitors.

Mr Cantello, who lives in Henfield, could not believe the issue had gone to a public inquiry.

He said: "This whole thing's ridiculous - it's bureaucracy gone mad."

He said an eight-metre path would allow vehicles on to the Downs but he had no objection to a path two metres in width.

Mr Cantello said: "I don't understand why the county council has wasted public money on a two-day public hearing. They never called me to say let's sit down and talk about it.

"Mr Sullivan feels very aggrieved about people being deceitful. They've cast me in different roles in Patching. What I don't like is the lack of honesty about it all."

Regarding the curse, Mr Cantello said: "They'll get their comeuppance."

Mr Sullivan also plans to take action for financial compensation from some villagers, principally members of the Patching Village Society, set up as a voice on development plans.

Mr Cantello said: "This could potentially cost the members of the village society a lot of money. Mr Sullivan is investigating the background and meeting solicitors."

A West Sussex County Council spokesman said: "Patching Parish Council and the village society applied to the county council for an order adding the path to the definitive map and we decided to support their claim.

"The landowner objected and that was why the inquiry was held.

"Regarding the width of the path, the county council cannot choose a width but has to apply for the width the public have traditionally enjoyed. Local people have not expressed any desire to see it narrowed to two metres.

"There is no evidence it was used by vehicles to get to the Downs before the path was closed. However, if the order is confirmed and this proves to be a problem we will take appropriate action."