Pallants Residents Association established

Residents Associations provide a vital role in protecting and enhancing the communities which they represent. The Pallant area in Chichester is suffering from the increase in heavy traffic within the City and this article by resident and Society member Cedric Mitchell describes the birth of this new association.

(The article – along with others  – appeared in the June 2016 issue of the Chichester Society Newsletter )

 

The Four Pallant Streets
The Four Pallant Streets

First a bit of background. Why are the Pallants important? They are at the historic and cultural centre of Chichester. The origins of the Pallants dates back to at least the middle ages when the South East sector of the city belonged to the Church. Originally named the Palatine (from the word palatial) the name became corrupted to the Pallants and consisted of the four streets we have now.

Paving the Way to Today

 In 1578 the streets of Chichester were paved under an Act of Parliament. In the eighteenth century Chichester went through something of a renaissance and many houses in the Pallants were gentrified. Among the houses built at this time was Dodo House which was built for Henry Peckam, a wine merchant, in 1712. This is of course now the Pallant Gallery. Since then it has continued to be an area for wealthy merchants and professional people. Today probably a majority of the buildings in the Pallants are listed grade II and all four Pallants have historic paving. The Pallants are also a conservation area.

Problems with Trade Deliveries

Although not a shopping street, the Pallants are one of the things that people come to Chichester to see and the area is very much on the City guide route. In the 1970’s East Street and North Street were pedestrianised and much thought was given to servicing the shops in these streets. East Street was to be served from a back area leading off Cooper Street and a similar arrangement was put in place for North Street. Additionally deliveries to premises in these streets could easily be made out of shopping hours.

In general this has worked well, but in recent years two things have happened. Overtime working gave rise to deliveries out of hours and 40ft articulated lorries were not envisaged when the pedestrian area was born. As a result of this we now have a situation where these large lorries attempt to use the Pallants to service shops in East Street. A second problem is that ‘sat navs’ misdirect drivers thinking that there is a through route. This has resulted in 40ft articulated lorries having to make a three point turn or else reverse the length of North and South Pallant.

Not only is this upsetting for the residents (in some of the smaller properties there are bedroom windows on a level with the driver’s cab) but it results in considerable damage to the listed buildings in the street as well as causing damage to the historic paving, to say nothing of the inevitable damage to parked cars.

I brought the continuing damage caused to buildings and pavements to the attention of the Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee (CCAAC). Alan Green, Chairman of the CCAAC wrote several strong letters to the leader of West Sussex Council.  This produced words of sympathy but no action or solutions. As a result it was suggested that the residents might see better results if complaints came from an official body.

Formation of the Residents Association

So in January 2016 an inaugural meeting of the proposed Pallants Residents Association was held at which Tony Earl agreed to Chair the Association. The other Officers (as of June 2016) are Catherine Gunn Treasurer, Rowena Daniels Secretary and myself as Vice Chairman. A further meeting held on 7 March was attended by over 40 residents at which the Officers were confirmed. Alan Green was invited to give a talk on the history of the Pallants.

Since the Residents Association was formed several successes have been achieved. Notably a meeting was held with the Transport manager of Iceland Foods (who were one of the worst offenders) which  resulted in strict instructions being given to their  drivers not to enter South Pallant. Better signage from the South Pallant car park has also been achieved.

Less successful have been negotiations with West Sussex County Council to adopt preventative measures to protect buildings and pavements. The fight goes on.

The setting up of the residents association has also had wider benefits to the streets. It has instilled a much greater sense of community and further social activities are planned for the future.
Cedric Mitchell, June 2016

Objections to the proposed Waste Water Treatment Works at Whitehouse Farm

Albion Water are planning a waste water treatment plant for developers Linden Homes and Miller Homes at Whitehouse Farm, Chichester, West Sussex.  The Environmental Agency has consulted on the environmental permit application ref EPR/SB3338AD/A001 and the Chichester Society has,  through its Chairman,  raised several objections as detailed in a letter than can be consulted here.

Crossword – March 2016 Newsletter

An underlying theme of this crossword is the environment, so several of the answers relate to this topic.

CLUESMarch 2016 crossword
Across
7 Divest of trees (13)
8 Immediately after this (8)
9 Nope it’s not closed (4)
10 This open framework may be tactile (7)
12 Open these gates and you may get wet (5)
14 They make a beeline for these (5)
16 Belonging to the same group (7)
19 Not a monetary pound (4)
20 A farm dawn may address climate change (4,4)
22 Capable of decaying (13)

Down
1 Past subjective of be (4)
2 Set for is collection of trees (6)
3 Positive feeling of admiration (7)
4 Not sit (5)
5 Trolls walk this way (6)
6 Immediately after this (8)
11 Arian CID leads to dangerous precipitation (4,4)
13 A seat of seeds (7)
15 Include or contain (6)
17 Group fighting in public (6)
18 Tool for bending cold metal (5)
21 A principle of behaviour (4)

For solution click here

If you wish to read the articles that appeared in this issue click here

ChiSoc submits CFT renewal to Civic Voice Design Awards

ChiSoc has submitted the Chichester Festival Theatre renovation scheme to the Civic Voice 2016 design awards competition.

To be successful, projects have to make a significant contribution to the quality of life in our villages, towns and cities and the Society believes that the outcome of the Theatre’s RENEW project would fully justify the award.

IN THE EVENT THE SUBMISSION WAS UNSUCCESSFUL

CFT - Exterior1CFT - FoyerCFT - Theatre Cafe

 

A27 Proposals – position statement from the Society

The Chairman of the Society, Richard Childs, Society issued a press release on 19 January which reads as follows.

The Chichester Society has looked at the maps recently published by the Observer showing possible upgrades for the A27. Richard Childs, the Chairman, said “The Chichester Society has a responsibility to support whatever is best for Chichester as a whole”.

We currently have a situation in which everyone agrees that something must be done. Predictably, North Chichester and Lavant have come out in favour of a southern route, and South Chichester and Selsey in favour of a northern route.

As ever the devil is in the detail. Will a northern route contain sufficient environmental safeguards to prevent the destruction of the scenic value of the South Downs? Will a southern route have the capacity to cope with the vast expansion of Chichester proposed in the Local Plan? Should temporary traffic congestion determine the choice of a route which will be in place for decades to come? While the leaked maps are useful in helping to frame such questions, lines on a map do not provide answers. For this reason the Society will hold a watching brief and comment or campaign as appropriate once the full consultation is launched.’

The original document can be viewed by clicking here.

Crossword – December 2015 Newsletter

An underlying theme of this crossword is architecture, so several of the answers relate to this art.

CLUESDecember 2015 puzzle
Across
1 Tears may result if you are hit by this (5)
4 Plant a collection of sports cars (7)
8 I’m no great-aunt creates a row (13)
9 Elsy sleeps, why not? (9)
11 Cunning is costly (3)
12 My measure is part tricky (6)
13 Flying buttress style (6)
16 A familiar father (3)
17 Home admin is argumentative (2,7)
18 15th and 16th century line (13)
20 He thirsts for these garments (1-6)
21 A rustic dialect (5)
Down
1 No trams need a cross-beam (7)
2 An opening for edge merchants (9,4)
3 A forceful memory (3)
4 This support may be part intelligent (6)
5 Mrs Rafton may change shape (9)
6 A retailer all at sea perhaps (5,8)
7 A familiar address for a junior (5)
10 A war-like representative no longer tense (9)
14 Descriptive of cloth is MacCrib (7)
15 Diffuse or direct light, he’s sad to do it (6)
16 He opted out of this establishment (5)
19 A fishy treaty without a car (3)

For solution click here

If you wish to read the articles that appeared in this issue click here

A-Boards update – a blight or a boon to the city centre?

Crane St end A boardsThe Society in Jan 2014 counted over 200 A-boards within the city centre. In the right circumstances a few A-Boards can have a positive benefit in attracting custom to smaller and often independent shops. But 200+ is too many!

However, their use is deprecated by the Chichester District Council – see their guidance on ‘Shop Front and Advertisement Design’ here.  Alternative  business signage to A-Boards is being developed by the Chichester Business Improvement District (BID)

Chichester Law Courts – Closure Proposals

Our Response to The Government’s Proposals to Close the Law Courts Building and Move its Services Out to Worthing / Portsmouth / Horsham … or points even further afield !

Question 1: Do you agree with the proposals? What overall comments would you like to make on the proposals?

We do not agree with the proposals insofar as they affect Chichester. There will be costs involved in running a court system and, although it is reasonable to look for economies, these should be secondary to the provision of accurate and prompt justice.

Delays of more than a year are already common in Chichester, and trying to stuff the caseload into busy courts at Brighton/Hove or Portsmouth is not going to help.

Question 2. Will the proposals for the provision of court and tribunal services have a direct impact on you? If yes, please provide further details.

The complete closure of Chichester’s courts would undoubtedly affect such of our members as may be required to attend.

Question 3: Are there other particular impacts of the proposals that HM Courts & Tribunals Service should take into account when making a decision? Please provide details.

The percentage utilisation of the court buildings is a crude measure. The lack of use could well relate to lack of judges, or delays preventing witnesses from attending, thus creating the need for adjournments. The latter factor will be exacerbated by the extra travelling that is envisaged in the proposals.

In any case, a figure of 78% occupancy is quoted locally for the crown court, and it is difficult to see how such a court could be considered under-utilised.

In respect of the Magistrates’ Court, we consider that local knowledge is an important factor in determining cases. Given also that evidence is often short and simple, forcing witnesses to travel for an extra hour each way means that witnesses will be sharply more reluctant to help in the administration of justice.

Question 4. Our assessment of the likely impacts and supporting analysis is set out in the Impact Assessment accompanying this consultation. Do you have any comments on the evidence used or conclusions reached? Please provide any additional evidence that you believe could be helpful.

The additional travel times are optimistic, to say the least. The car journey to Portsmouth or Brighton/Hove takes longer than the 30 or 50 minutes quoted, except well outside the rush hour – from personal experience, the Brighton journey can take over an hour and a quarter. Improvements to congestion blackspots are still years away. Nor is any allowance is made for finding a parking space.

For train journeys, no allowance is made for getting to the station and buying a ticket. Unless court timings are adjusted to suit trains, there may be additional waiting time – services from Chichester are half-hourly but from intermediate stations hourly. This is not London with trains every 5 minutes!

In any case, thought should be given to the problems of those attending from outlying districts. It may well take 30 or 40 minutes to get from Bognor or Selsey to Chichester. Add a further hour to that and double for the return journey, and there is a real disincentive to attend court. Moreover, the more complex a journey, the more things can go wrong, with consequent delays.

Question 5. Are there alternatives to travelling to a physical building that would be a benefit to some users? These could include using technology to engage remotely or the use of other, civic or public buildings for hearings as demand requires.

 

As the County Court deals more with civil cases, it may be possible to hold its cases in non-specialist buildings.

Video links for evidence should be regarded as unsatisfactory, as the limitations of video prevent the magistrates, judge or jury, as the case may be, from assessing the veracity of a witness. It is not only what the witness (or defendant) says, but body language has an important part to play. It has always been a principle of British courts that justice should be seen to be done, and this is eroded when video evidence is used extensively.

The hoped-for economies may not be as great as proposed, given that an officer of the court would have to be sent out to establish the reliability of each link.

Question 6: Please provide any additional comments that you have.

It seems perverse to be closing Chichester’s courts when under government-sponsored proposals the population of the area is planned to increase by some 25% in the next 15 years.

As Chichester has been a major legal centre for centuries, expertise has accumulated in the city. Under closure proposals, this will either be written off – or the lawyers will move to Brighton or Portsmouth, thus multiplying the problems of access for inhabitants of Chichester.