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 present Dolphin and AnchorThe Anchor with local cycle club Easter Monday 1913The Dolphin Hotel oldThe Dolphin Hotel (foreground) and The Anchor Hotel
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.
The Dolphin Hotel 1903 advert
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 Dolphin and Anchor as one licence
The Anchor and Dolphin advert
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.
The Duke and Rye is a relatively new pub, situated within the former church of St Peter the Great.
The Duke and Rye
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.
The Duke and Rye Memorial garden
(1) Based on information from Lorna Still, volunteer at The Novium Museum published in Chichester Post 17 March 2017
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.
Castle Inn on the left, also showing the Westgate pinch point (Photo With thanks to Gravelroots.net “http://www.gravelroots.net/history/180.html”)Westgate plaque
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
Chichester District Council has selected its preferred development partner, Henry Boot Developments, to deliver the Southern Gateway regeneration project. There has been a delay in the developer publishing their proposal for the Redevelopment and this has provided the opportunity for the Society to bring to their attention “The Height Limited Underpass “, proposed by the Society as a solution to the level crossing problem which blights the Southern Gateway.
This they did in a letter to the developer on 22 June in which they noted that Chichester District Council had concluded with their Regeneration Master-Plan that there was nothing that could be done to remove the crossings despite the public response in the consultation, and in other surveys, that the crossings should be removed.
The letter also referred to the Society’s disappointment at Chichester District Council’s handling of the consultation process as expressed in the Society’s March 2018 Newsletter in the article “Consult, then carry on regardless”. They also referred the developer to 3 articles -”Southern Gateway- A Better Solution”, “A Height Limited Underpass” and “Introducing The Forum Quarter” (the Gateway+ proposal which the Society supported) in the December 2018 issue.
The Society urged the developer, the District Council, West Sussex Council and Network Rail to take this ultimate opportunity to correct the mistakes of the past.
More details of the proposed underpass can be found on this website here
A Book review by David Wilson of “The Street Names of Chichester” published by Chichester City Council 978-0-9542252-2-3. Available from the Council House, £4.95
Although first published in 1996 (authored by Ken Green) and revised in 2008 by Guy Clifford and Helen Monckton, this is a surprisingly little-known book that provides an excellent guide to the street names of Chichester.
It is not just about the ancient street names, though some of these reveal unexpected sidelights on the development of the City, but follows through on modern names which we pass every day in the estates and side streets without a second thought. Many of these have been inspired by personalities and events in Chichester’s past and taken together, form an alternative and informative history of the City.
North/South/East/West streets are indeed ancient and have an obvious origin (Sussex towns seem to have a penchant for naming streets after points of the compass!), but some of the oldest names are less obvious. Broyle Road dates back to a Brullius, or hunting park, granted to Bishop Neville by Henry III in 1229. St Pancras is named for the church which itself dates to before 1309. That may be named after either a saint who gained converts in Taormina, Sicily in 40 AD, or a 14-year-old boy in Rome canonised after beheading for his conversion to Christianity, but what are either doing here?
Fitting that a Roman saint should be remembered by a Roman road
As for the obscure saints who have streets in Chichester, St. Cyriac and St Rumbold, you will have to read the book!
Many people asked to indulge in some free association between Chichester and history will start by thinking of the Cathedral and its bishops. Indeed some 20-odd bishops and deans are commemorated by street names. Bishop Luffa will be familiar to most through both a Close and the nearby school – but how many realise that the road running through the middle of that estate, Sherborne Road, is not named after the Dorset town, but after Bishop Sherborne who was appointed in 1508?
Sherborne Road; Bishop Sherborne was noted for his patronage of learning – perhaps the school should be named after him instead?
The whole of that area reads like a complete roll call of church history in Sussex, but there are a few bishops to be found elsewhere. Mount Lane is not named for a hill but after Archdeacon Mount, appointed 1887. (Challenge: can you name the other road which suggests a hill in Chichester, but is actually named after a bishop?)
After the bishops come the Mayors. A similar number of roads are named after Mayors of Chichester, and again, mostly on estates which have taken up this theme. The earliest mayors, for some reason, appear on the Whyke estate, going back as far as William Taverner who was in office in 1249. Most of the other streets named after Mayors used to appear on the Orlit estate – the explanation of Orlit, named after the prefabs there, is in the book but you have to search for it – and that area now forms part of Swanfield. Redevelopment has caused a purge of Mayors there, though some names still appear on older street maps. The only ‘surviving mayor’ in Swanfield is Bradshaw Road, Elisha Bradshaw having been Mayor in 1536 though newer roads such as Seddon Close (James Seddon, 1972) have been named after more recent mayors.
Bradshaw Road; This is in Swanfield – for other medieval mayors you will have to go to Whyke
Many street names properly commemorate benefactors, often Mayors, who provided for the welfare of Cicestrians, including almshouses (Cawley Road), schools (Oliver Whitby Road; one of the few where the Christian name is included), simply money (Juxon Close) and day centres (Tozer Way).
Cawley Road; John Cawley, the father was Mayor three times and founded the almshouses in Broyle
Service to the city is also included as at Silverlock Close; Fanny Silverlock was a leading figure in the Guides and is one of the few women to be remembered in a street name.
Other themed names which link to the city’s history also turn up in appropriate locations. The military are present at Roussillon Park and the pioneers of mental health at Graylingwell (but see below for more on these). There are also medical names – Bostock and Baxendale – tucked away behind St Richard’s Hospital and Forbes Place by the former Royal West Sussex Hospital where Dr Forbes was the first superintendent. On a broader theme it is obvious that all the roads in the East Broyle Estate to the North West of the City are named after English cathedral cities – but the challenge is to find all 17 cities whose names were used (including the one omitted from the book!) and then to name the 25 who were not chosen. There is no indication as to why Carlisle and Truro are included but not, say, Ripon and Portsmouth.
East Broyle; A view of the cathedral from Wells Crescent on the so-called Cathedral Estate
Ordinary people have made their bid for immortality, though, mostly those who built the houses now standing there. Some of these names seem to record a family compromise – Winden Avenue = Winifred + Dennis. And one which has always puzzled me personally – Velyn Avenue – turns out to be named for the builder’s daughter Evelyn.
Velyn Avenue; Evelyn was the daughter of Mr Keates, the builder hereabouts
In the same area there are names from northern France commemorating the death in WW1 of the brother of Frederick Keates, the builder.
There are also many examples of streets being named for their uses. Pubs come top of this list with the oldest being Crane Street, recorded in 1277, and thought to be named for an inn there. But there are also examples of names remembering market gardens, ironworks, transport and quarries. Perhaps the oddest, which I thought must be apocryphal until I saw it in print, is the story of how a select part of Summersdale came to have a set of roads named after drain covers!
This review has spilt the beans on perhaps 5% of the examples in the book. That should surely be an incentive to buy it and discover more examples of Chichester’s history all around you!
New Streets
However, there are new streets which have been built since the book was published in 2008, and if you do the ‘Green Spaces in Chichester’ walk described in the September 2020 Society Newsletter, you will pass some of these.
In the Roussillon Park development off Broyle Road the older roads are named after Colonels of the Royal Sussex Regiment which used the barracks from 1873 onwards, and of Generals who had raised regiments which became incorporated into the Royal Sussex. These names appear in the book. Some of the newer roads, on the south side of the Square, have been named after men of the Royal Sussex who were awarded the Victoria Cross:
Carter Road: to honour Company Sergeant-Major Nelson Victor Carter VC (1887-1916)
When serving with the 12th Battalion at the Boar’s Head, Richebourg l’Avoue, France, he led a successful attack inflicting casualties and capturing a machine gun. Later he carried several wounded men to safety before being mortally wounded himself. The award of the Victoria Cross was for his most conspicuous bravery.
Looking along Carter Road with Johnson Mews on the right
Johnson Mews: to honour Major-General Dudley Johnson VC, CB, DSO, MC(1884-1975)
When commanding the 2nd Battalion The Royal Sussex Regiment he successfully led them in forcing a crossing of the Sambre-Oise Canal in France in 1918. An officer on secondment from the South Wales Borderers, he was awarded the Victoria Cross for his conspicuous bravery and leadership.
McNair Way: to honour Captain Eric Archibald McNair VC (1894-1918)
In February 1916, an enemy mine exploded under the front-line trenches held by the 9th Battalion. Although much shaken, he at once organised his men and with a machine gun team drove off the advancing enemy. Then, across open ground and under heavy fire, he brought forward reinforcements. The award of the Victoria Cross was for his most conspicuous bravery.
Queripel Mews: to honour Captain Lionel Ernest Queripel VC (1920-1944)
At the Battle of Arnhem, when serving with The Parachute Regiment, he rescued a wounded Sergeant and was wounded himself. He led an attack on a strongpoint and re-captured a British anti-tank gun. Later as his company position became untenable, he ordered his men to withdraw but stayed behind to give them covering fire. The award of the Victoria Cross was for his courage, leadership, and inspiration to all.
In the expanding Graylingwell development to the North East of the City the following new streets can be noted.
Lloyd Road is named for Robert Lloyd, horticulturist and Head Gardener at Brookwood Asylum, who designed the gardens and especially the ‘airing courts’ for Graylingwell and other asylums as healing spaces.
Lloyd Road is laid out with apple and pear trees trained along the fences
Connolly Way is named for John Conolly (he spelt his name with one ‘n’, unlike the road), a Victorian psychiatrist who with Lord Shaftesbury drafted the Lunacy Act of 1853 which shifted the treatment of the insane from restraint to medicine. He practised in Chichester about 1820 at the outset of his career and in 1839 became Superintendent of the Hanwell Asylum where he was able to apply principles, it being the first major asylum to dispose of all mechanical restraints. His son Edward was born in Chichester, but emigrated to New Zealand where as lawyer and politician he was able to institute his father’s principles of rehabilitation to the New Zealand penal system.
Conolly Way is the southern boundary of Havenstoke Park
Just off the route of the ‘Green Spaces in Chicester’ walk, the newest part of the estate is Anna Sewell Way. Anna Sewell was born in 1820 in Norfolk and lived at ‘Grayling Well House’ the farmhouse to the east of the asylum, from 1853 to 1858. She was unmarried and lived with her parents; her father was manager of ‘The London And County Bank’, a forerunner of and on the site of the Natwest Bank in East Street. She only published her famous children’s novel, Black Beauty, much later, in 1877 a few months before her death in Norwich.
Anna Sewell Way is between the former asylum and the hospital, not at all close to the farmhouse where she lived
Longley Road which winds through the centre of the main buildings recalls the builders of the original asylum, James Longley of Crawley, established 1863 and who continued in business until taken over by Kier Group for £1 in 2000.
POSTSCRIPT
This review came to be written because my wife and I have been doing walks in Chichester during lockdown rather than getting the car out to go further afield. The result will appear in a ‘Green Spaces in Chichester’ walk to appear in the September 2020 edition of the Chichester Society newsletter.
I had intended to include something about street names in notes to go with the walk but found too much material to be included there. Part of the way through the research I discovered that the City Council had published the book reviewed above, doing a much more thorough job than I could hope to do. Hence the review.
Post Views:2,751
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
