Category Archives: Planning

An opportunity to create a wildflower oasis in Chichester

Environment, Local Plan, ,
John Templeton explains the background and how this proposal could become a reality.
The first phase of the Whitehouse Farm housing development (or Minerva Heights as it’s now called) comprises 750 homes and is well under way. An outline planning application for a second phase with a further 850 homes was submitted in July 2022. This includes what the developers call a Northern Country Park on two fields opposite Whitehouse Farm, and immediately south of Brandy Hole Copse Local Nature Reserve (see map). It’s proposed these fields would not be developed for housing but remain as Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace, or SANGS in planning jargon. This approach compensates for the loss of greenspace on the remainder of Whitehouse Farm.
The Chichester Society has made a formal objection to creating a Northern Country Park, because this proposal is misplaced. Country Parks was introduced in the Countryside Act 1968 for the development of ‘honeypot’ recreational facilities on the outskirts of London and other major urban areas. The intention was to discourage people from driving into the surrounding countryside. A good example is Queen Elizabeth Country Park between Horndean and Petersfield which provides a large car park, café, gift shop, tourist information and toilets as well as cycleways and guided walks through the forest and to Butser Hill.
Local Nature Reserve 
Brandy Hole Copse (formerly named East Broyle Copse) is a 15 acre area of woodland, on the southern side of Brandy Hole Lane. Part belongs to Chichester District Council and the rest to two landowners. The public are allowed to visit the Copse on foot from several access points on Brandy Hole Lane and Centurion Way cycle-footpath. Years ago, most of the Copse was impenetrable but a hurricane-force storm in 1987 brought down many trees. A public meeting in 1989 called by the District Council and Sussex
Existing-View-south
Existing-View-south
Wildlife Trust led to the formation of the Brandy Hole Copse Conservation Group, now the Friends of Brandy Hole Copse, to care for it. After years of work including enlarging two ponds and creating footpaths, the Copse was designated a Local Nature Reserve in 2001.
Up to the present time, Brandy Hole Copse (BHC) is the only designated Local Nature Reserve in Chichester District. It’s managed by the Council through the BHC
Management Board. Members include council officers, District and City councillors and residents of local bodies including the Chichester Society. A long-held wish of the Friends is that the two fields immediately south of the Copse should be planted as wildflower meadows and included within an enlarged Local Nature Reserve. These fields and the Copse were also cherished by the late naturalist Richard Williamson as being of major importance for nature conservation. As a tribute to Richard, we reproduced an evocative article he wrote for the Chichester Observer in May 2013 and published it in the September 2022 Newsletter. He asked whether Cicestrians cared about this green space? We and the Friends of Brandy Hole Copse certainly do!
Wildflower-meadow-in-NW-Chichester
Wildflower-meadow-in-NW-Chichester
At the time of writing, the two fields are still part of Whitehouse Farm and the larger field is still farmed.
The owners have for many years allowed people to walk along the borders of both fields and this has been widely enjoyed by those visiting Brandy Hole Copse and Centurion Way. The developers’ proposals give no details of how the country park would be created but show paths and cycleways wandering across the fields with clumps of trees and play-on-the-way facilities.
Expanding the nature reserve 
We think these two fields should be brought under the management of Brandy Hole Copse Local Nature Reserve and given priority to nature as is the case with the Copse itself. The paths around the borders of the fields should be well surfaced for use by buggies and wheelchairs for access into the Copse and Centurion Way. A cycleway could also be provided from Old Broyle Road (B2178) to Centurion Way. The newly planted meadows would be protected as nature is allowed to take over.
The District Council’s updated Local Plan designates Centurion Way as one of a series of wildlife corridors connecting Chichester Harbour with the South Downs. The Copse sits astride this corridor with the new wildlife meadows adjacent to it acting as stepping- stones for nature as climate change gains momentum.
Post Views: 127

Chichester’s Local Plan Review approved for public consultation

Local Plan

Christopher Mead-Briggs explains the Local Plan has reached its final stage

Chichester Local Plan

There can be few jobs tougher than pulling together the changes needed to our out-of-date Local Plan so that it passes an Inspector’s Examination. It was in 2017 that we were first introduced to the ‘Preferred Approach’ document that began this process followed by a public consultation on ‘Issues and Options’ in the winter of 2018.
Since then, work has been on-going with specialist planners, transport experts and statisticians who have been meeting government agencies to review how the growth in our District area in terms of new housing and employment can be managed.  With all our geographical and physical constraints, an A27 which needs upgrading, a Harbour that’s an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a National  Park, can Chichester meet the housing targets set by Government?

New housing numbers down
The District Council agreed on 24 January to submit reduced housing numbers. The Government had required our District to build 638 dwellings per annum; the new figure is 575 a year for the length of the Plan period of 18 years from 2021 until 2039.

The biggest update in the revised plan is however more emphasis on climate change,
the natural environment, the importance of gaps between settlements, the establishment
of Strategic Wildlife Corridors, biodiversity and the need to protect our designated landscape areas.  In addition thought has been given to the possibility of a new settlement altogether where longer term housing growth might be accommodated elsewhere than Chichester.

The revised Plan has been out for public consultation between 3 February and 17 March this year and will be followed by an Examination led by an Inspector; only then can it be approved.  We’ve reached what’s called Regulation 19 stage in the process and this
means that the submitted Plan will now carry more weight in those planning appeals that
are outstanding.

Other policies
As part of the process, housing allocations have risen in Tangmere but reduced to nil in
the Manhood Peninsular with the exception of North Mundham. Additional employment land is allocated along the A27 at Bognor Road, and at Westhampnett to allow the expansion of the existing Rolls Royce factory. There are proposals to encourage the vitality of Chichester’s city centre reflecting the recent changes to planning regulations and also to
tourism generally.
Let’s hope the Local Plan Review succeeds.
……………………………
Christopher Mead-Briggs is a member of the Society’s Executive Committee. 
From The Chichester Society’s Newsletter no 215 March 2023

For further background see https://www.chichester.gov.uk/localplanexplained 

And for more articles like this do join the Chichester Society and receive the quarterly newsletter.

Post Views: 200

Chichester Transport Hub

Buses, Planning, Transport

* A few years ago, Chichester District Council surveyed its residents and businesses and then produced a document setting out a “Vision” for the city.[1] Among much else, this calls for the area around the train and bus stations to become “a key transport hub“[2].

* The Chichester Society has recently learned that the council is pressing ahead with long-standing proposals to re-develop the area in which the bus and train stations sit, as part of the “Southern Gateway” project. However, far from creating a “transport hub” or a “gateway” worth the name, the council is proposing to take away even the relatively good provision that now exists.

* They are proposing to close the bus station and all its facilities, and replace it with a line of bus stops on a bleak stretch of road which is exposed to the elements, hidden from the train station down a confusing route which “designs in” conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, and pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, there would be no facilities other than the sorry public toilets that happen to already exist in a nearby multi-storey car park.[3], [4]

* This flies in the face of what residents and businesses told the council they wanted, and runs directly counter to the principle of seizing opportunities for good town planning when they arise.

* All current deliberations seem to be taking place behind closed doors, to the exclusion of input from bus and train users and local residents – at precisely the time such input could make the most difference.

* There is no evidence that the Council has yet considered any disability implications.

* The proposal to close the bus station appears to be entirely financially driven. But even the financial assumptions seem questionable.

Chichester Bus Station
Chichester Bus Station – with walkway through to the train station (past the stairs on the left) – Google Streetview, Image Capture Jul 2021, © 2022 Google

 

[1] “Chichester Tomorrow – Your City Your Vision”. https://www.chichester.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=29358&p=0
[2]  Vision Document, p.30.
[3] This assumes that reports are correct that the stops are to be located on the Avenue de Chartres. If not correct, bus users and Chichester residents need to be brought out of the dark and told what is actually planned.
[4] For a fuller discussion of problems of this location, see the commentary on the final page before the appendices, titled “Designs for Chichester – The Worst of All ?”

For the full paper, with an Artist’s Impression of one possibility –
The Bus Station Moved to Integrate Even More Closely with the Train Station click Chichester Transport Hub – Chichester Society Thoughts

Post Views: 575

Proposed land swap involving Bishop Luffa School – give the Council your views

Buildings, Education, Land, Neighbourhood Plan, Planning

The City Council say there is the potential to swap some parcels of land between the Bishop Luffa School and the West of Chichester development site. This would enable a new extended school for ages 4-18 to be delivered on the West of Chichester Site, adjacent to the newly permitted sports pitches, and the existing school site would then be developed for housing, which would fund the building of the school. Bishop Luffa School are keen for such a land swap to go ahead. The proposal document can be viewed here.

The Council wants to know the views of locals – voting can be done online here or by indicating a preference via the last page in the document – returning it to the Council.

Voting will close on 15 December 2020

Post Views: 195

Vote on options for the City’s local road network

Highways, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plan, Roads, Underpasses

The Chichester City Council, together with the residents of Chichester, are in the process of preparing a Chichester Neighbourhood Plan. The Plan can include planning policies,
infrastructure projects, and aspirations. They have produced a document Southern Gateway: Road opportunities  Chichester Neighbourhood Plan – Background document which examines how the local road network could be improved in the vicinity of the Southern Gateway redevelopment area. It follows on from public consultation through which residents expressed support for a bridge or underpass across the Basin Road level crossing and for re-routing cars out of the city centre.

The document sets out the existing situation with city centre highway routing and four options: Firstly, the two preferred options for highways changes that CDC is considering making, namely

  • – reducing the southern gyratory to one lane (option 10)
  • – building a new link road through the city centre (option 11)

Secondly, the City Council’s new options

  • – redirecting cars out of the city centre, pedestrianizing Southgate (option 12), and
  • – as above with an underpass at Basin Road level crossing (option 13)

There is also the option to stay as we are (options 0)

The options are out for consultation – to express  a choice or add a comment go to here.

Voting will close on 15 December 2020

Post Views: 136

The Society’s formal response to Government on planned changes to the planning system

Area of outstanding natural beauty, Land, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plan, Planning, Planning appeals, Society responses to plans

The Society has previously made a response to the proposals via Civic Voice as noted in an earlier post available here. It has now filed a formal response with the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (GCLG) as noted below. (If you wish to view the Government’s consultation document it can be viewed here; the ensuing white paper can be viewed here)

Below is the Chichester Society view on the two planning consultations published by DCLG in August 2020 entitled: Changes to current Planning System and Planning for the Future.  We begin with an introduction which provides some context to our circumstances here in Chichester.

Introduction

Local planning policy is governed by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This places upon local planning authorities (LPAs) a duty to deliver sustainable development in their area based upon nationally directed Objectively Assessed Need targets for housing (OAN). The NPPF places what is called a ‘presumption in favour of development’ on all planning applications unless it can be demonstrated that the development would be detrimental based on defined policies.

Development in any LPA area is identified by the production of a Local Plan (LP). This must be a robust and clear document that outlines the planning framework and long-term strategy over a 15-year lifespan. The LP in Chichester was adopted in 2015 with a housing allocation of 435 dwellings per annum.  It needed review before July 2020 for it to have remained valid. The LP must be regularly monitored and updated in order to show that the planning authority have a five-year supply of land to meet the centrally allocated Objectively Assessed Need.

Chichester District Council (CDC) began a Review of the Adopted LP in 2016 in order to demonstrate that they had the land supply to meet the OAN of 12,350 dwellings for the remaining period (2016-2035). This means that the council had to be able to demonstrate that it had sufficient sites allocated to deliver 628 dwellings per year and this became the adopted level in the Review.

CDC is tightly constrained in the area that it can allocate for housing development because the majority of the district is located within the South Downs National Park (SDNP) which is its own LPA and is therefore excluded from the Chichester Local Plan Area. Our District also includes the Chichester Harbour AONB, Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area and Medmerry Compensatory Habitat.  All these are excluded from development. This leaves a very limited area of land for housing allocation and inevitably squeezes development into a limited number of areas within the City, on the East-West corridor from Tangmere to Southbourne and on the Manhood Peninsula which is in the Southern Coastal Plain and is very fertile.

Suitable sites for development are assessed via a Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). Sites from the HELAA are selected and identified for potential future development.

Local opposition to Highways England proposals for the A27 road improvement resulted in cancellation of their proposals.  This has hindered the Local Plan Review as many of the assumptions around road capacity that informed the initial site allocations and transport capacity work had to be abandoned following the scrapping of the scheme by central government. New rules on nutrient neutrality in the waters of the Solent introduced by Natural England in June 2019 have further added to the delay of the Review.

The LP has now become out of date. Its Review is now behind schedule and as of July 2020, CDC can no longer demonstrate a five-year land supply to deliver housing. This leaves our communities vulnerable to speculative applications to bring forward sites within the HELAA assessment, which are by definition regarded as sustainable.  We now live with an Interim Policy Statement aimed at limiting ‘planning by appeal’.

In August the government proposed changes to existing planning law to come into effect later this autumn.

The first was called Changes to current Planning System. It does not need primary legislation. Of particular concern are the changes to the formula used to establish the OAN.  It is calculated that the new formula will result in an increase in the OAN for the CDC area from 628 to 995 dwellings per annum, a large increase.

Secondly and at the same time, the Government published a Planning White Paper called Planning for the Future the object of which is to ensure that at least 300,000 new dwellings are built in England each year. This does need primary legislation and is the biggest change to planning policy since 1947. It is to be achieved by zoning areas for ‘growth’, ‘renewal’ or ‘protection’.  It proposes public participation at the consultation stage when Local Plans are drafted but reduced public consultation later on when development in ‘growth’ areas comes forward – in fact leading to abandoning the need for outline planning applications altogether in many cases. The proposal is that automatic outline permission is given for new development in “growth” areas and for “beautiful” schemes.

At present it can take 5 to 10 years to create a LP and the White Paper aims to reduce this to just 30 months. LPs will be much shorter (a reduction of 2/3rds in size is envisaged).  The new style LP will be just a ‘core set of standards and requirements for development’.  All this will be achieved by making new LPs subject only to the NPPF ‘sustainability’ test, by abolishing the test of ‘soundness’, abolishing ‘sustainability appraisals’ and abolishing the ‘duty to cooperate’.

Once new style LPs are in place it is proposed to limit the time it takes to determine planning applications to just 8 or 13 weeks and to achieve this, the White Paper is suggesting that LPAs must refund application fees if they exceed these periods.

We have made comments on both consultations.

Comments on ‘Changes to current Planning System’.

Below are the views of the Chichester Society on the first consultation Changes to current Planning System:

“Because of the amount of protected landscape (SDNP & AONB) within the Chichester District so little is left that is capable of development and almost all that there is comprises high grade agricultural land in farming production mainly within the southern coastal plain.  With the need to increase food production, this area has some of the most fertile land in England with long sunshine hours capable of high levels of agricultural output.  To destroy this natural resource and instead to build houses upon it makes no economic sense.

 The housing numbers imposed on any Local Planning Authority area should not be determined by the actual size of the authority area but on the size of those parts which have no physical or environmental limits to development. Therefore, we consider that assessment of housing numbers in any District area should be reduced by the omission of those parts:

  • within a National Park,
  • an AONB,
  • of land liable to flood,
  • of grade 1 & 2 agricultural land,
  • of wildlife corridors
  • and of greenfield land important to the setting of the National Park, AONB or City.

In addition, in Chichester, so much of the demand for housing comes from completely outside the area by the insatiable demand from those elsewhere in England seeking to relocate, many for early retirement. Priority in the allocation of new housing should be given to local residents and young people

Comments on the White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’

The Chichester Society has made comment on the second consultation which is the planning White Paper called Planning for the Future set out below:

  • The White Paper proposes the encouragement of public participation at the consultation stage of Local Plan preparation so as to reduce consultation later on when development in comes forward.

Comment: We oppose the limiting of public engagement. Our experience has been that the standard of design falls once development is applied for. We believe that all development should continue to be the subject of individual planning applications. Public engagement is considered essential if the planning process is to be seen as trusted. Paragraph 2.48 of the White Paper states that peoples’ right to be heard in person will be changed at local plan inquiries. Planning Inspectors will be given the discretion over the form that an objector’s representation might take with the ‘right to be heard’ during a public forum removed. The right to appear and be heard could be replaced with the opportunity for an Inspector to call objectors over the phone or ask for further written comments at the Inspector’s discretion. The issue of limited public involvement  becomes even more important when one considers that the opportunity to engage in the planning application process is also being diminished by the new proposals.

  • Making Local Plans subject only to the NPPF ‘sustainability’ test. Abolishing the test of ‘soundness’, abolishing ‘sustainability appraisals’ and abolishing the ‘duty to cooperate’.

Comment: These tests are seen as essential. We are concerned about funding for essential infrastructure.  The White paper is largely silent on effective mechanisms for achieving infrastructure, housing or flood risk.  The removal of the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ raises concern as how consideration will be given to resolving strategic cross boundary issues such as major infrastructure. 

  • Involve communities in setting design codes in their area for Local Plans.

Comment: The planning system was previously reformed to address concerns that it was not sensitive enough to local needs and this brought about Neighbourhood Plans.  It is particularly unclear how Neighbourhood Plans will fit into the proposed new zonal planning system.  There is no clarity about the scope and power of Neighbourhood Plans in the new system. The current proposals would appear to reduce the role of Neighbourhood Plans to local design guides. 

  • Altering the system such that all land falls within one of 3 planning zones– a ‘growth area’ suitable for substantial development’, a ‘renewal area’ which means an existing built up area which is considered suitable for development or ‘densification’ and finally a ‘protected area’ where more stringent development controls apply.

Comment: We have concern that public support to agree where ‘growth’ is to take place will be difficult, perhaps impossible.

  • Limit the time to determine planning applications to 8 or 13 weeks and to achieve this, to consider making LPAs refund application fees if they exceed these periods.

Comment: Such pressure is only likely to reduce public confidence in the planning system. 

  • Increase land owner / developer contributions when land is given planning permission for development

Comment: Support

  • Replace paper with digital code: interactive maps, modelling and text messaging.

Comment: Support

Post Views: 175

CPRE Response to Changes to the Planning System

Land, Planning

The Campaign to Protect Rural England has responded  to the Government’s proposed changes to the Planning System.

CPRE believes that planning is crucial to empowering local communities and making
sustainable, liveable places. Ensuring everyone has a decent home, that meets their needs
and that they can afford, is essential to that, both in town and country. Equally, it is vital
that new development is planned intelligently; our countryside is precious and fragile and
urgently needs better management in the face of the climate and nature emergencies.
Critical to this is that land is not lost to development unnecessarily. More new homes are
undeniably needed, and there is plenty of scope to use previously developed urban land
to help address this need.

It is their view, however, that the proposals will mainly hinder these aims, principally
through their reliance on centralised prescription and formulae instead of on judgement
and local evidence. They state that the consultation itself is symptomatic of Government’s apparent reluctance for meaningful input. It asks respondents to comment on a wide range of specific details, but doesn’t consult on the policy principles that underpin the proposals, despite these being often the most important points people will wish to address.

The full response from the CPRE can be read here.

The Chichester Society was one of many organisations contributing to this response – it’s response can be found here

 

Post Views: 161

ChiSoc responds to UK Government Consultation on changes to the planning system

Area of outstanding natural beauty, Land, National Parks, Neighbourhood Plan, Planning, Planning appeals, Society responses to plans

The Chichester Society has submitted a response to two Government documents relating to the planning system.

First the Government has published a consultation document on changes to the planning system a copy of which can be viewed here. The consultation ends at 11:45pm on 1 October 2020. Ways for members of the public to respond can be found here.

Second the Government has also issued a White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ which can be found here.

The Chichester Society Executive Committee has submitted the following response:

To Civic Voice

The Chichester Society is making the representations set out below to Government on the two planning Consultations.

  • Changes to current Planning Systems, a consultation paper with proposals to improve the effectiveness of the current system. It will be found on this link:

Our comment:

Whereas under current policies the assessment of how many new dwellings are to be planned for in any given district is subject to a cap, which applies as a limit to the number, the new method will remove that cap. In addition, statistical sources for determining the starting number of new homes will now involve the use of the ‘higher of’ of various statistics. The Chichester District Local Plan 2015 which expired in July this year contained a requirement for 435 dwellings per annum. We understand that the number will increase to 995 dpa or thereabouts as a result of the changes now proposed which we consider excessive.

These changes pay no regard to local circumstance. They treat all parts of England in the same way.  We believe that the individual character of our District areas should be assessed rather than our being handed a formula of “one size fits all”.

Because of the amount of protected landscape (SDNP & AONB) within the Chichester District so little is left that is capable of development and almost all that there is comprises high grade agricultural land in farming production mainly within the southern coastal plain.  With the need to increase food production, this area has some of the most fertile land in England with long sunshine hours capable of high levels of agricultural output.  To destroy this natural resource and instead to build houses upon it makes no economic sense.

The housing numbers imposed on any Local Planning Authority area should not be determined by the actual size of the authority area but on the size of those parts which have no physical or environmental limits to development. Therefore, we consider that assessment of housing number in any District area should be reduced by the omission of  those parts:

  • within a National Park,
  • an AONB,
  • land liable to flood,
  • grade 1 & 2 agricultural land,
  • wildlife corridors
  • and greenfield land important to the setting of the any National Park, AONB or City.

In addition, in Chichester, so much of the demand for housing comes from completely outside the area by the insatiable demand from those elsewhere in England seeking to relocate, many for early retirement. Priority in the allocation of new housing should be given to local residents and young people

 

2          Planning for the Future (The White Paper) will be found on this link:

Our Comment

  • It is proposed to reduce the content of Local Plans. The changes envisage reducing the size of LPs by ‘at least 2/3rds’ by cutting out all lists of ‘policies’ and instead producing a ‘core set of standards and requirements for development’.

Comment: This is a huge task for Local Planning Authorities with limited staff and expertise to create what will need to be site specific sets of ‘standards and requirements for development’ on all areas where ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ is to be zoned.

  • Encouraging greater public participation at the consultation stage of LPs so as to reduce consultation later on when development in ‘growth’ areas comes forward – in fact leading to abandoning the need for outline planning applications altogether in many cases. The proposal is that automatic outline permission is given for new development in “growth” areas and for “beautiful” schemes.

Comment: We oppose the limiting of public engagement on where new development is to be allocated to that period during the Local Plan preparation. Our experience has been that the standard of design falls once development is applied for. We believe that all development should continue to be the subject of individual planning applications.

  • Making LPs subject only to the NPPF ‘sustainability’ test, abolishing the test of ‘soundness’, abolishing ‘sustainability appraisals’ and abolishing the ‘duty to cooperate’.

Comment: These tests are seen as essential in preventing a ’developers’ charter.

  • Limit content of LPs to that of setting out site or area specific parameters.

Comment: This is a huge task beyond the capacity of most District PLA’s and would need major public engagement to be seen as trusted.

  • Involve communities in setting design codes in their area for LPs.

Comment: Looking at the National Design Guide published in Oct 2019, it says almost nothing about community involvement in setting local design codes which we think it should have done. Communities will want involvement provided they believe they will be listened to.

  • Nationally to set a new infrastructure levy for infrastructure and affordable housing.

Comment: no comment

  • Alter Local Planning Authority (LPA) planning roles to that of appointing a chief officer for ‘design and place making’. The indication is that this may become a ‘statutory appointment’.

Comment: no comment

  • Altering the system such that all land falls within one of 3 planning zones– a ‘growth area’ suitable for substantial development’, a ‘renewal area’ which means an existing built up area which is considered suitable for development or ‘densification’ and finally a ‘protected area’ where more stringent development controls apply.

Comment: We have concern that public support to agree where ‘growth’ is to take place will be difficult, perhaps impossible. We consider allocating land for ‘renewal’ and ‘protection’ will be easier.

  • Limit the time to determine planning applications to 8 or 13 weeks and to achieve this, to consider making LPAs refund application fees if they exceed these periods.

Comment: Such pressure is only likely to reduce public confidence in the planning system.

  • Reduce the time to produce a LP to just 30 months, with the threat of government intervention if exceeded. Give Planning Inspectors holding LP examinations the right to decide who is called to give evidence, the intention being to shorten the process.

Comment: This is a huge task for LPA’s with limited staff and expertise to create what will need to be site specific sets of ‘standards and requirements for development’ on all areas where ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ is to be zoned.

  • Increase ‘permitted development’ rules

Comment: still under discussion

  • Increase land owner / developer contributions when land is given pp for development

Comment: Support

  • Replace paper with digital code: interactive maps, modelling and text messaging.

Comment: Support

 

Post Views: 215

Planning application responses – 29 May 2020

Planning, Society responses to plans

The following submissions were approved by the Society’s Executive Committee.
The entries below comprise the planning application number, brief details of the address and the subject of the application and the Society’s response.

You can view the planning application and any associated documents by quoting the application number at the District Council’s website here

20/01082/PLD
4 Alexandra Road, Chichester. Removal of front wall
Requested that this application is disallowed and an enforcement notice served on the applicant

20/01120/DOM
43 Bisopsgate Walk, Chichester. Part 2 storey and part single storey rear extension.
Requested that this application is refused pending a sensible rethink of the roof form.

20/01155/DOM
5 Tregarth Road, Chichester. Single storey rear and side extenson and loft extension and front porch.
Requested that this application is refused

Post Views: 260