A story of fairground children and a local watchmaker

December 8, 2020Local history, PersonagesBob

Hilary Green has provided the following story told to her by her late grandmother:

“Are you aware that in the past, the gypsies and fairground people (as they would have been called then) used to bring their sons, once they were aged 13 years old, to the Sloe Fair. The boys would be taken to Charles Weare’s watchmakers and jewellers shop at 7 South Street, where they would be bought a pocket watch – a right of passage for the travelling community.

The daughters would be brought to his shop during the Sloe Fair to have their ears pierced. Charles Weare (1823 – 1900) was some 20 or so years older than his wife, Emma Russell. He used to care for the clocks on the market cross and he and Emma, who loved dancing regularly went by carriage to the Chichester Assembly Rooms. He made the clock for the Assembly Rooms. The Chichester Invitation Quadrille Class in the late 1880’s was a favourite and some of the invitation cards survive. Charles was on the premises of his shop in 1861 and witnessed the cathedral spire falling in.

I inherited a little cardboard jewellery box from his shop and several brooches which may well have come from it. My late grandmother and mother told me about this many years ago.”

Post Views: 357

The George and Dragon

December 7, 2020Heritage Trails, Local history, PubsBob

It is believed that in the late 18th century the first stagecoach from Chichester to London ran from the spacious yard of the inn which in 1805 was called St George under publican Mrs Miller.

The stagecoach, which was operated by Robert Quennel who lived in the neighbouring property, probably ended its journey at the thriving transport hub of the Golden Cross Inn at Charing Cross. In 1804 the poet and visionary, William Blake (1757–1827) travelled from London to Chichester for his trial of sedition, after he was accused of evicting drunken soldiers from his garden at Felpham with the words, ‘‘Damn the King, damn the country and damn you too!’ He may well have alighted at the George and Dragon having travelled along Stane Street via Petworth.

The yard continued to be used for the horsey fraternity with landlord Mr Goldie offering experienced instructors for riding hacks and children ponies in the 1940s. Accommodation in the form of flats were also available. In the days when the city had a bad reputation for drunken brawling, the George and Dragon must have had its fair share of altercations as it was known locally as the ‘Bucket of Blood.’ Wile no car parking attendants existed then, there were ‘paving commissioners’ to enforce the law. Landlord Hastings Langley, who kept the tap room, was fined 10s and 8s costs in 1865 for leaving a waggon in Priory Lane.

It was the location for meetings by various organisations including the Angel Provident Society who held their first annual dinner in 1904 when the funds stood at £402 2s 9p being invested in the Post Office Savings Bank. The Friendly Societies Infirmary Demonstration Committee enjoyed a ‘smoking’ concert in 1903, a not infrequent event across pubs in those days for those addicted to the ‘weed’.

The freehold is held by the Punch pub group. The building was listed Grade II in 1971.

Post Views: 609

The Chichester Harbour Hotel

December 7, 2020Heritage Trails, Local history, PubsBob

The building at 57 North Street is Georgian and was built in 1804–6 as the home of Admiral Sir George Murray, who distinguished himself at the Battle of Copenhagen in 1801 and became Mayor of Chichester in 1815, the year he was knighted.

In February 1939 plans for a £25,000 licensed residential hotel, known as the Ship Hotel, were approved by the City Licensing Justices with a full license assigned to Mrs Betty Healy who was to be the resident manageress. The application was made by the then owners of the building, Allied Hotels.

Although the licenses conditions did not cover the provision of a bar, the application was opposed by Arthur Bennett the resident manager of the Dolphin Hotel and Mr Bisshopp licensee of the Old Cross. The former was concerned that his monopoly was under threat and the latter that there was no real market for dining rooms.

With the work of local architect Harry Osborn the Ship Hotel eventually opened to non-residents on 12 April 1939 offering 30 bedrooms, 17 bathrooms, H&C water and central heating and a passenger lift.

Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery met here in 1944 prior to D-Day. In 2015 the Harbour Hotel group acquired The Ship Hotel renaming it the Chichester Harbour Hotel and Spa. The building was listed Grade II in 1950.

(1) Image from Alan Green

Post Views: 1,841

The Old Cross

December 7, 2020Heritage Trails, Local history, PubsBob

Formally the Green Dragon, the pub at No. 65 North Street was rebuilt in 1928 and given its current name in commemoration of the city’s outstanding Tudor market cross. The date of the rebuild is shown on dice embedded in the front wall.

The land here was owned by the Bishop of Chichester in medieval times which history was thought to explain the appearance of a ghostly apparition reported in 1938. Following the Reformation, two tenements were built on this site and by 1688 they had been converted into an alehouse. Alehouses (later beerhouses) were licensed only to sell ale or beer and could not sell more intoxicating liquors or offer accommodation.

A local sporting hero in the late 19th century was Mr D. Richards, once the world champion for the most cannons in billiards. He played matches and gave exhibitions in the Old Cross in 1897 and was pitted against landlord Arthur Purchase who was more than a match for the professional on points conceded to him.

Arthur was landlord for at least two decades till his death in 1911. The property remained in the family and was due to be auctioned in 1919 together off with the private residence at No. 66, but was sold before it took place.

In 1930, following a temporary change in licensee to Frederick Munroe, Frank Richards took over the pub opening a new billiard room and promoting its new ‘Snack Bar’ apparently located at No. 35 North Street.

In 1939 the then landlord Mr Bisshopp was one of the objectors at a court hearing to the plans for a new hotel (which became the Ship Hotel) as he felt, based on his own experience, that there was little demand for dining-room trade. He thought the people behind the new restaurant were very plucky.

Post Views: 1,326

The Dolphin and Anchor

December 5, 2020Heritage Trails, Local history, PubsBob

The present pub of this name dates back to 1997 and is situated in the western part of what were once the principal coaching inns of Chichester – one called the Anchor, the other the Dolphin.

The picture of the earlier Anchor Hotel above shows a meeting of the Chichester and District Motorcycle Club on Easter Monday 1913. In 1914 the Anchor Hotel (Home Counties Trust) was noted to offer ‘family & commercial; billiards, motor garage and inspection pit’ services.

Both inns date back to the seventeenth century, but it is possible that an older inn – The George – stood on this site by 1519 and possibly earlier. The Dolphin was already established in 1660 and in 1670 was noted as containing 23 hearths, a number only equalled by the Bishop’s palace. In 1632 Henry Chitty was Mayor of Chichester and took a lease of the Dolphin Inn, which he sold in 1637. Henry was the captain of the local militia, known as the trained band at the time of the Civil War. He was central in the defense of the City during the Civil War in 1642.

The city was bitterly divided during the civil war of the 1640s and this factionalism continued into the eighteenth century, with the Anchor becoming the headquarters of the Tory party and the Dolphin becoming the base for the Whigs. Elections in those days were very rowdy, with considerable drunkenness and riotous behaviour.

In 1922 the two inns had separate licenses and it was noted by the licensing authorities that there was no door or other means to separate one hotel from the other. It was therefore agreed that in future only one licence would be issued and that the premises from thereon would be called the Dolphin and Anchor Hotel. As state by the authorities, in effect it was simply the surrendering of the license of the Anchor and the extending of the premises of the Dolphin.

The Anchor Hotel’s ‘Whig and Tory’ bar has been converted into the present-day Dolphin and Anchor bar and was opened following the closure of the hotel in 1997. Several large retail outlets now operate from the former hotel buildings. The Dolphin and Anchor Hotel was Grade II listed in 1950.

Post Views: 1,440

The Duke and Rye

December 5, 2020Heritage Trails, Local history, PubsBob

The Duke and Rye is a relatively new pub, situated within the former church of St Peter the Great.

Although the building appears to be old, even medieval, the former church of St Peter the Great was only completed in 1852 under the guidance of English Gothic Revival architect Richard Carpenter. A tower had been planned but proved to be too expensive; a porch was installed instead. The church was deconsecrated in 1982 due to the dwindling congregation and the cost of needed repairs. Despite much local opposition the District Council favoured a commercial use for the building and St Peter’s Market opened in 1983 for 19 privately-owed businesses. The building was restored by designer Tony Castley and reopened as the St Peter’s Slurping Toad ale house in 1998.(1)

The memorial garden to the left marks the spot where the church tower would have been built, but this plan never came to fruition. This former church was Grade II listed in 1950.

(1) Based on information from Lorna Still, volunteer at The Novium Museum published in Chichester Post 17 March 2017

Post Views: 3,361

The Chichester Inn

December 5, 2020Heritage Trails, Local history, PubsBob

The Chichester Inn at 38 West Street is built on the site of a medieval house belonging to the Dean of Chichester Cathedral.

The house was left in a ruined condition following the siege of the city during the civil war. The house had been rebuilt by 1692 and by 1754 it had become an inn known as the Three Kings. By 1792 it was called the Duke of Richmond Arms but was recorded in 1805 as the Castle with Barrett named as publican (the Castle Inn is seen in the picture below).

It retained this name until 1992 then becoming The Chichester Inn. It was a popular venue for meetings including the Chichester Hand Bell Club from 1844, the draymen in the employ of Messrs George Henty & Sons, brewers in 1909 and the Committee of the Licensed Victuallers Association newly formed in that year. In 1905 ‘sixty yards of bicycles’ caused consternation when stood by the curb one behind the other outside the Inn. It was a visit by thirty of forty members of the Portsmouth Arrow Cycling Club who used the Inn as their headquarters. Twice that many were expected to visit the City the following week to sight-see!

In 1911 a reproduction of the long-gone Westgate Arch was created to commemorate the coronation of George V with one arch leading to the Castle Inn (as seen in an accompanying picture).

According to legend, the ghost of a Roman soldier haunts the premises. The building was listed Grade II in 1971 (then named The Castle).

Landords included: 1805 Barrett; 1832, 1839 Thomas Stone; 1851 J Heather; 1855 J. Bridger; 1861 Richared Louch; 1866 Edward Louch; 1890, 1891 William Millington; 1899 William Philmore Morris; 1905 Frederick Edward Augustus Greene; 1909,1911,1914, 1915 John Deighton; 1919 Mrs Lucy Dyton/Dighton; 1920, 1925 J. Hart

Some other images:

Another view of the ceremonial arch at Westgate.

The west gate entrance to the City stood till 1777 when it was demolished. The bottleneck for traffic is shown in the image below. Road improvements in the 1970s led to the demolition of houses in Westgate and the creation of the present roundabout.

Post Views: 1,093

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

November 13, 2020Buildings, Education, Land, Neighbourhood Plan, PlanningBob

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: 443

Vote on options for the City’s local road network

November 13, 2020Highways, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plan, Roads, UnderpassesBob

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: 327

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

October 29, 2020Area of outstanding natural beauty, Land, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plan, Planning, Planning appeals, Society responses to plansBob

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: 350