Shop front retained and modified, new double leaf doors finishing flush and decorated white. Internal works. New signage.
Objection. The raised lettering and lack of street number are non-compliant with CDC shop-front guidance. The committee also considers the sloping fascia board is out of proportion with the rest of the frontage.
Single storey rear extension and external alterations.
Objection. The extension flouts the 60 degree rule and the use of uPVC window frames is unacceptable in the Conservation Area. The committee questions the use of vertical timber matchboard cladding which it considers will look incongruous
Proposed 1 no. non-illuminated fascia sign, window and door vinyl’s and refurbishment of existing building to gelateria with preparation room in the basement, internal and external alterations to include electrical, mechanical, ceilings, walls, decoration, floors and skirting works.
Strong objection. The translucent vinyl transfers inside the windows are non-compliant with CDC shop-front guidance and will be harmful to the conservation area in a prominent position next to the market cross. In addition the untidy wiring above the left-hand end of the fascia should be removed or tidied up.
Removal of rear extension and erection of a replacement single storey rear extension. 3 no. roof lights to rear attic roof and reinstate the pavement wells from the cellar windows.
Objection. The committee considers that this application is impossible to determine. The drawings are poor and there is insufficient detail. We are concerned about the loss of historic 1831 fabric and it is not clear how the cellar-wells in the pavement and fire escape will be achieved.
Variation of condition 2 of CC/15/04201/FUL. Alterations to design and fenestration.
The committee considers this application to be invalid. We note that the drawings show a number of material changes from the previous approved application, including reinstatement of attic windows and an increase both in floor area and height and thus cannot constitute a variation of condition but should be subject of a new application. They seem to be a reversion to the original superseded plans withdrawn at the request of the planning officer. The additional bedrooms will result in more people and cars in a development we already consider to be over-dense.
17/00747/FUL Costa 69 – 70 East Street PO19 1JX External seating.
Objection. A licence is required from the Highways Authority (WSCC) to block the thoroughfare. Such outside areas are inevitably subject to ‘creep’ and studs are needed to clearly mark the agreed area in agreement with WSCC. The screens surrounding the area will require separate planning permission if they include advertising. We are concerned with the effects of blocking the pavement and forcing pedestrians over the curb onto the cambered road surface, particularly for the disabled and elderly. Extra congestion on Market Days is also a concern.
17/00974/FUL 3 The Boardwalk Northgate Change of use of the existing building comprising shops and hair salon (class A1) and cafe (class A3), to form 1 no. restaurant on ground floor (class A3), 4 no. 1 bed maisonettes and 1 no. 2 bed flat (class C3) including associated access.
Objection. We deplore the loss of retail and office premises in central Chichester and consider that the existing use should be maintained. The proliferation of roof-lights damages the ‘look’ of this building in a prominent position, and the internal alterations will hide the historic Victorian timber roof trusses. There is serious concern that the flats and restaurant proposed would overload the waste-water treatment works, as per the correspondence from Southern Water.