Chichester Road Space Audit – the Society’s Response and now your chance

(RSA image and main text on this page sourced from linked websites and here)

West Sussex County Council has reviewed how it develops parking schemes across the County and working in partnership with Chichester District Council, a pilot study has recently been undertaken in Chichester. This more progressive approach towards parking management, known as a Road Space Audit (RSA) has tried to determine if there are other ways for the County Council and its partners to consider existing and future parking demands.

See copies of the final report and the executive summary.
The Society was among a limited group of consultees given early access to the Report and submitted a response in November last year which is available here.

The RSA is designed to be an enabling study that complements existing statutory plans and emerging studies in respect of transport infrastructure, parking policy and spatial planning, such as ‘A Vision for Chichester’.

County Councillors and officers at West Sussex County Council are now keen to ascertain whether members of the public are in support of the broad themes raised within the RSA and if these fit in with their aspirations on what they would like Chichester, the place, to be in the future. Please note that as yet, nothing has been decided and further discussions will take place pending the outcome of this consultation exercise.

The online survey form can be accessed here. The closing date for responses is 31 October 2017.

Halsteds the Ironmongers – Chi’s long-forgotten industrial history

The business was founded in the 1840s  by Charles Townsend Halsted, one of 3 sons of Charles Halsted, and the principal driving force behind developing the business. It traded through a shop in East Street (Nos 80 and later 81/82)and subsequently established first a brass foundry at 20 North Pallant and later a larger main iron works in the garden of 1 North Pallant as shown in the map below. (Click to enlarge).

Charles Townsend Halsted died in 1891. The following is an extract from the records of the Probate Service‘HALSTED Charles Townsend of Chichester esquire died 25 December 1891. Probate London 14 March (1892) to Maria Halsted widow Sir Robert George Raper knight James Lainson Gauntlett gentleman and Charles Edward Halsted esquire. Effects £60758 13s. 1d. resworn January 1893 £61425 13s. 7d.’

In 2016 , his estate would be worth  £6,010,000.00 using the retail price index (Source – Measuring Worth) – clearly he was a successful businessman of the time.

The following concept map provides an overview of the history of Halsted & Sons’ ironmongery and foundry business in Chichester  (click it for clearer view).

More detailed information concerning the sons and the business itself can be found by using the numbered links below the map.  Below are some additional images.

(1) Charles Townsend Halsted   Source – The Halsted Trust
(2) Henry Halsted    Source – The Halsted Trust
(3) John Halsted  Source – The Halsted Trust
(4a) Halsted’s the Ironmongers  (An overview) Source – Pat Saunders , The Novium
(4b) Halsted and Sons of Chichester (Detailed article) Source – Alan H J Green, Sussex Industrial History no 35, 2005
(5) The Great Exhibition Source – Grace’s Guide to British Industrial History

The 1851 Great Exhibition

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Halsted small kitchen range Amberley Working Museum ex Grace’s guide

 

 

Nos 1 & 1A North Pallant both once owned by the Halsteds
Blue plaque at 1A North Pallant next to passageway to Halsted’s works

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Halsted shop 81-82 East Street (Copyright of the Novium ( a service provided by Chichester District Council). All rights reserved)

 

 

81-82 East Street with the Halsted Key Emblem above the first floor (picture taken July 2016)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Halsted key emblem

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Draft Southern Gateway Masterplan is flawed in not addressing the level crossing misery

The Chichester Society has submitted its response via the questionnaire to the District Council’s draft Southern Gateway Masterplan. It can be viewed here.

While supporting the general thrust of the proposals the Society feels that the Master Plan is fundamentally flawed by not providing a solution for the level crossings misery. The provision of a bus gate and the existing crossing on Stockbridge Road and a                               shallow underpass for cars on or parallel to Basin Road is a workable solution.

As regards the Strategic Environmental Assessment the Society stated that the feasibility of the Master Plan aspirations and timetable require forward planning and investment now to enable the essential infrastructure items such as drainage, moving the bus depot, moving the Royal Mail Sorting Office, and land purchase for the underpass / level crossing solution.

Freeflow – an alternative vision for the Southern Gateway

Consultation on the Southern Gateway ends on 10 August. A meeting to discuss Freeflow takes place at 6:30 Thursday 3 August Assembly Rooms. If you wish to support this proposal you can sign a petition here

Many are seeking changes to the Southern Gateway plan as it is deemed as flawed because it does not address the  need to avoid the current congestion at the 2 railway crossing to the South.

Freeflow offers the City a gateway worthy of the name by providing a dedicated new road and bridge solution, removing congestion, pollution and mounting frustration of those trying to access Chichester.  It proposes the closure of both crossings saving over 20,000 working days wasted every year waiting at the crossings.

The route creates minimal visual impact allowing the closure of both crossings, and with minimal impact on the road network during construction of the bridge

Freeflow offers significant public realm benefits around the train station, removing the through traffic making it pedestrian and cycle friendly

Freeflow proposes a high quality Exhibition / Conference / Performance venue, Hotel, Commercial and Retail space and additional homes to enhance the local economy and create a vibrant southern quarter to Chichester

Freeflow will help alleviate traffic congestion on the A27 by not requiring people to divert to other access routes into the city as they currently do

Inns, Pubs and Hotels – the latest Heritage Trail announced

Trail 5 – Inns, Pubs and Hotels

Chichester’s earliest inns can be traced back to mediaeval times when they catered for pilgrims visiting the shrine of St Richard in the cathedral. Over time they came to serve all types of travellers, who needed rest and food after travelling along the notoriously bad Sussex roads. By the middle of the  seventeenth century there were seven inns in Chichester, as well as 50 alehouses, taverns, and other premises that sold drink. Given the population was only 2,000 people at the time, of whom over half were women and children, it can be seen that Chichester was a boozy city and remained so until the beginning of the twentieth century.

Today there are only a dozen public houses in the city centre and no inns. Many of the city’s old inns have been converted into restaurants or private ccommodation. This trail includes both former as well as current pubs and inns. Download it here.

For details of other trails and where to obtain the leaflets see here.

Hole in the Wall (stop 6 on the Trail)

69 – 70 East Street – Costa

17/00747/FUL Costa 69 – 70 East Street PO19 1JX External seating.

69 – 70 East Street – Costa

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.

The Boardwalk Northgate

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.

3 The Boardwalk Northgate

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.

150 St Pancras

17/00946/FUL and 17/00947/LBC 150 St Pancras PO19 7SH Change of use from A1 and C3 to A3 (restaurant).

150 St Pancras

Strong objection. While we would welcome the return of this important seventeenth
century building to use, we have a number of major concerns. A kitchen could not be installed without altering or removing existing historic fabric and would require an unsightly air extraction unit. There are no details of fire-escape provision from the upper floor nor of the waste disposal facilities intended. We note the apparent inconsistency in refusing an earlier planning application for a micro-brewery on this site which would have had shorter opening hours and not required airextraction equipment or alterations to the historic fabric.

The Foundry, 1 Southgate

17/01332/FUL. The Foundry, 1 Southgate, Chichester. To extend outdoor seating and create outside bar.

The Executive Committee comment that there should be no external speakers for music and that the hours of use be limited to 11 at night. We also point out that the situation on the external signage to the premises has not been regularised.

Therefore the Committee objects to this application and asks that the Council refuses permission.