Category Archives: CCAAC submissions to applications

The formal response of the CCAAC to a planning application

Recent planning applications – comments from the CCAAC – November 2017

APPLICATIONS OF INTEREST TO CHISOC
from the  Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee

12 Whyke Lane PO19 7UR
Partial demolition, and subsequent reinstatement to match existing, of flint faced
garden wall to property’s south-eastern boundary. Strong Objection. We note with
regret that the existing wall has already been demolished before planning
permission has been granted and object to the loss of historic fabric. We also
query whether an archaeological investigation has been carried out on this site
which is adjacent to the Roman amphitheatre. There is insufficient detail in the
application and it is unclear what materials will be used to rebuild the wall. It
should be a condition that a sample panel of the new flintwork to be used should
be submitted to the Planning Officer before a decision is reached.

City Business Centre PO19 8DU
Replacement 2 no. non-illuminated fascia signs and 1 no. non-illuminated directory board
sign. Objection. While we are pleased that the proposed fascia signs are non-illuminated
and use the Gill-Sans typeface, the raised lettering is non-compliant. We have no
objection to the direction sign.

9 New Park Road PO19 7XH
Alterations to existing single storey rear extension. Objection. While we have no
objection in principle to the extension, the horizontal cedar cladding which wraps around
the existing structure looks incongruous and is inappropriate in New Park Road.
Clarification of the design of the roof lights and associated blinds is also needed as there
could be issues of light pollution affecting adjacent properties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35 Whyke Lane PO19 7US
Proposed single storey rear extension. Strong Objection. This house gained a hideous
double roof extension under permitted development rights when it was just outside the
Conservation Area. 35 Whyke Lane is now in the Conservation Area so those rights,
applied for here, cannot be invoked so this should be treated as a full planning
application. The proposed rear extension constitutes an over-development of the site and
is both detrimental to the Conservation Area and un-neighbourly

14 Cavendish Street PO19 3BS
Demolition of single storey mono pitch roof kitchen extension & erection of duo pitched
roof kitchen extension and internal alterations. Objection. We consider this to be over-development and are concerned regarding the possible loss of historic fabric. The six
roof lights could result in light pollution or overlooking to adjacent properties. A flat roof
with parapet would be preferable.

9-11 East Street PO19 1HJ
Replacement ATM and removal of step beneath. Objection. We query the need to remove
the step as this will compromise the pleasing symmetry of the building and will require
substantial making good to the adjacent stone cladding.

Ground Floor Unicorn House 8 Eastgate Square PO19 1JN
1 no. illuminated Fascia sign and 2 no. internally illuminated Menu Boxes. Objection.
The sign is out-of-scale with the height and width of the cornice and needs scaling down.
We consider that illumination is not required. We suggest the treatment used at other
branches of the chain, such as Brentwood, Brighton and Farnham, where simple lettering
has been used rather than the squid logo proposed here, would be more appropriate and
sympathetic to the character of the building.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7 Little London PO19 1PH
Alterations of rear window to form french doors and internal alterations.
Objection. We are concerned regarding the loss of the early 19C ground-level
sash window. We recommend that either (a) the sash be converted to hinge on
the Scottish system, or (b) the central cupboard on the ground floor be converted
to a shower room/wc and the existing bathroom become an entrance lobby, allowing
the sash window in question to remain intact.

 

 

 

 

 

30 Southgate PO19 1DP
Retrospective change of use of single storey extension from stores to restaurant kitchen,
re-roofing of extension. Objection. Previous planning permission was granted on the
basis that no kitchen would be allowed in perpetuity. The false wall sound insulation will
not cure the problem because noise will still be transmitted through the rafters.

New Park Court St Pancras PO19 7SB

17/02050/FUL New Park Court St Pancras PO19 7SB

Replacement windows and frames.

Objection. This application is impossible to determine due to poor documentation, with no detail drawings of the windows and should not have been validated. It is completely unclear what “laminated windows with latest spec glazing” means. It is also noted that this application has been sent to irrelevant consultees (14.09.17).

7 Franklin Place PO19 1BL

17/02030/DOM and 17/02031/LBC 7 Franklin Place 

Proposed rear extension and internal alterations.

Objection. While the external appearance of these alterations seems acceptable, the roof layout of the extension is not shown on the proposed first floor plan. Similarly, the colour and materials of the roof glazing framing and the rear French doors and sidelights are not given. We consider that this application should not have been validated and that the Historic Buildings Advisor should be involved to judge whether historic building fabric will be unacceptably lost. (already submitted prior to meeting due to early closing date)

117 St Pancras PO19 7LH

17/01707/DOM and 17/01708/LBC 117 St Pancras PO19 7LH

Replacement doors and windows and internal alterations.

Objection. The committee cannot determine this application due to insufficient information. Design & Access and Heritage statements have not been provided. There is no detail regarding the ‘Georgian style’ timber bifold doors or ‘frameless ‘balustrade around the veranda. We do, however, commend the replacement of plastic rainwater goods with cast iron.