Policy DM11: Town Centre Development

Showing comments and forms 1 to 6 of 6

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 549

Received: 29/01/2019

Respondent: Mr Robin Kidd

Representation Summary:

I support encouraging more residential development in upper storeys, despite the capacity problems on waste water treatment. This may need a change to the application of the policy on Wastewater Management (S31), as residential city centre developments have been positively discouraged in the past due to the lack of capacity at Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works.

Full text:

I support encouraging more residential development in upper storeys, despite the capacity problems on waste water treatment. This may need a change to the application of the policy on Wastewater Management (S31), as residential city centre developments have been positively discouraged in the past due to the lack of capacity at Apuldram Wastewater Treatment Works.

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 976

Received: 30/01/2019

Respondent: Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee

Representation Summary:

Support paras 1 to 4 of policy and revision to shopping frontages.

Out of town retail developments should be resisted.

Para 7.69 references the Shopfront and Advertisement guidance note, but often development does not conform within Conservation Area. Case officers do not seem to know existence of guide. Do applicants know of it?

Full text:

Retail Hierarchy and Sequential Approach.

We support this policy and commend the six bullet points in para 4.60. We strongly support in 4.66 the promotion of the city centre's retail offer and the restriction of further retail development in out-of-centre locations.

Chichester City Development Proposals.
Whilst this acknowledges need for new development to have special regard for the city's historic character by the use of Supplementary Planning Documents or Development Plan Documents, what faith can we have that they will be adhered to? The previous Southern Gateway Development Framework specified that buildings should be two storey with occasional three. Despite this the recent canal-side development, known as John Rennie Road, was permitted to be three storey with a lot of four, and is of such poor quality design it damages the approach to the city and the Conservation Area. Chichester Gate, as permitted, is an architectural disaster displaying as it does poor design and cheap materials. Furthermore the policy should make the point that the whole of the city centre is a conservation area and should be respected as such. A map shewing the Conservation Area boundary should be appended to the Local Plan

The Council must undertake to enforce the provisions of their SPDs etc otherwise they are worthless. The policy should make the point that the whole of the city centre is a conservation area and should be respected as such. A map shewing the Conservation Area boundary should be appended to the Local Plan.

Design
This acknowledges the historic environment, the need to create high quality buildings and the need for policies to drive this. All well and good - but policies need to be adhered to by CDC when determining applications and there is little evidence of this happening at present.
Policy S20 introduces the concept of 'Sense of Place' and the importance of getting scale, height density right. This is a laudable aspiration which has been ignored in the past.

Ensure the policy is enforced when determining all planning applications

Historic Environment.
This acknowledges the importance of Heritage Assets, the need for further Conservation Area Character Appraisals (CACA) and the importance of protecting Heritage Assets. Fine - but with no Conservation Officers on the staff preparation of CACAs is falling woefully behind. The revision to the Chichester CACA is still not completed over two years on.

Commit to filling the Conservation Officer posts and completing all the CACAs as a matter of urgency

Southern Gateway
This policy fails to acknowledge that a large part of the designated Southern Gateway area lies within the Conservation Area and includes several Designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets, GII-listed buildings in Southgate and Basin Road, buildings on the Local List and others identified as positive in the latest Conservation Area Character Appraisal. The statements regarding the majority of the buildings in the SG area not making a positive contribution are misleading. The railway station, county court, Boys' High School and bus garage all do make a positive contribution. The bus garage is an important example of the early use of thin-shell pre-stressed concrete to give a clear span. It is an attractive building whose open space should be put to new uses (an open market for e.g.). Once again the need for high quality design is included in the policy but will it be enforced? The Southern Gateway has recently been defiled by two appalling permitted developments - John Rennie Road and Chichester Gate.
The ideas for traffic management and diverting all but buses along Basin Road are dubious.

Correct the policy by stating that the SG area is in the Conservation Area and include from the above about the heritage assets, listed buildings etc. Also commit to enforcing the design policy.

Chichester Centre Retail
We support paragraphs 1 to 4 of this policy and revision to the shopping frontages, especially with regard to Crane Street. The policy rightly acknowledges the constraints of the historic character of the city centre and the need to improve the visitor experience. Out-of-town retail developments such as Barnfield suck the life out of the city centre and should be resisted. 7.69 mentions the importance of considering the Council's Shopfront and Advertisement Design Guidance Note within the Conservation Area. This is a laudable aim but, sadly, shopfronts which patently do not conform are usually permitted. The Guide requires hand painted lettering on a painted timber fascia, yet metal or plastic fascias with raised lettering are invariably permitted without question. Case officers do not seem to know of the existence of the guide and one has to wonder whether applicants are made aware of it. It is not easy to find on the CDC website.

Ensure case officers are aware of the ship front guide and that it is enforced in their decisions. Strengthen enforcement to rule on unauthorised shopfronts

Historic Environment
7.154-7.166 acknowledges conservation areas, the existence of local lists and character appraisals and emphasises the need for further conservation area character appraisals (CACA) and the need to protect Heritage Assets. Fine words, but with no Conservation Officers on the staff all this is getting woefully behind. The revision to the Chichester CACA is still not completed over two years on. CCAAC have put forward in the past four years several proposals for additions to the local list whose scoring was agreed by the then Historic Buildings Advisor but which have still not been signed off, leaving those buildings with no protection Once again, with no conservation officers these aspirations cannot be met .
Policy DM27 itself includes conserving and enhancing the special interest and settings of designated and Non-Designated Heritage Assets but not about the need to protect these assets themselves. This omission should be corrected

Complete processing of outstanding Local List applications, appoint Conservation Officers, and reword the policy to provide for protecting the assets

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1159

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Horn

Representation Summary:

The town centre is dying due to demize of actual shops to buy things in. If you continue to agree to coffee shops and eateries and fail to incentivise retail outlets the town will die.

Full text:

The town centre is dying due to demize of actual shops to buy things in. If you continue to agree to coffee shops and eateries and fail to incentivise retail outlets the town will die.

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 1681

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester BID

Representation Summary:

The East Street primary retail policy area is too long and should terminate more or less at the end of the pedestrian area.

Full text:

The East Street primary retail policy area is too long and should terminate more or less at the end of the pedestrian area.

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3018

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Charities Property Fund

Agent: Savills (Commercial) Limited

Representation Summary:

Support secondary shopping frontages which include promoted site, which support commercial uses at ground floor and re-use of vacant floorspace at upper levels.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3137

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mr John Templeton

Representation Summary:

Whilst I support the alteration of retail frontages in Crane Street and in most of South Street from primary to secondary frontages, I consider that the properties on the west side of South Street between the Vacars Hall/Crypt and Canon Lane should remain as primary frontages.

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments: