Skip to content Skip to left sidebar Skip to footer

Minutes – Planning and Conservation Committee – 10 November 2022

The agenda and papers for this meeting are available here: Planning and Conservation Committee – 10 November 2022 – agenda and papers

The minutes of this meeting are presented below.

You can also download a PDF copy of the minutes here: Minutes – Planning and Conservation Committee – 10 November 2022



Date: 10 November 2022

Time: 2.00pm – 4.04pm

Location: The Council Chamber – The Council House • North Street • CHICHESTER • West Sussex • PO19 1LQ

PRESENT: Councillor Quail (Chairman), Councillor Gershater, Councillor Corfield, Councillor Gaskin

EX-OFFICIO: The Deputy Mayor (Councillor Plowman)

ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Councillors Bell and Sharp, Deputy Town Clerk (for agenda item 8), Planning Adviser, Member Services Support Officer, Chairman of the Chichester Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (Ash Pal), West Sussex County Councillor Simon Oakley, a member of the public, Kelly Simmons (Smith Simmons and Partners) to observe discussions on application numbers CC/22/02382/FUL and CC/22/02298/FUL, Maurice Ormerod and Oliver Sargent (Lilyford Homes) for application number CC/22/02401/FUL


RESOLVED to accept and approve apologies and reasons for absence from the meeting from the Mayor (Councillor Joy) and Councillors Apel and Scicluna.


Councillor Plowman declared an interest as a Member of Chichester District Council and of Chichester Conservation Area Advisory Committee.

Councillor Quail declared an interest as the Chairman of the Westgate Residents Association.


RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 October 2022, having been circulated; be approved and signed as a correct record.


a) CC/22/02382/FUL

23 Lavant Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 5RA
Redevelopment of the site with creation of 5 no. flats and parking, landscaping and associated works. (Variation of condition 2 of permission 20/03226/FUL – retrospective alteration to entrance gates, landscaping, site layout fenestration alterations, grey timber detailing, additional roof light and alteration to balcony).

Objection for the following reasons:

  • The application proposes (partly retrospective) changes to the approved scheme which aimed to integrate the new apartment building into the special character of Lavant Road, giving the appearance of a large, mock Tudor style, family home. The character and appearance of the approved building and the coherence of the approved design would be detrimentally affected by the alterations proposed. The window in the top floor gable would be replaced with full width glazing between the adjusted Tudor style beams. This is not in keeping with the design of the building itself or the character of the surrounding area and would appear incongruous. The painted wooden porch matching the Tudor design would be replaced by a cast iron porch. The timber (approved to be painted black, as is traditional), is proposed to be painted grey.
  • The ground floor flat, with direct access to a garden to the rear, is proposed to be 2-bed (rather than 3, as approved), and new double doors are proposed to access the side of the property from the main bedroom, close to the bin store. This may present a security issue. The proximity to the neighbour risks their amenity being affected.
  • A new third bedroom is proposed in the second floor flat, which has limited space for a three-bed property and no access to a garden or balcony, with consequent concern to the residential amenity of future occupants. A study would also be added within the formerly open space kitchen lounge area. A utility area and bathroom would be extended into the rear roof spaces. Consequently, additional rooflight windows are proposed on the side elevations, further eroding the character of the building itself and the local area.
  • The rear garden is proposed to be laid to lawn, with three trees removed and the wildflower meadow no longer provided, to the detriment of local ecology and biodiversity.
  • An extensive external lighting system is proposed to all elevations and the front gate pillars, which would harm the character and amenity of the area, having a significantly urbanising effect.
  • The drainage pipes to the rear elevation which served an unauthorised balcony (now removed) are proposed to be retained, giving an unfinished and poor quality appearance to the building.
  • The height and design of the front gates would change from 1.5m with an open top design to approx. 2m closed boarded style gates, preventing any natural surveillance of and interaction with the street, contrary to good urban design principles and to the significant detriment of the street’s existing special character.

b) CC/22/02401/FUL

Case Officer: Kayleigh Taylor
1 Whyke Lane Chichester West Sussex PO19 7UR
Demolition of the Christian Science Society church, erection of a part two, part two and a half and part three storey building (including an undercroft) to accommodate a community facility (Use Class F1), 16 no. sheltered apartments (Use Class C3), communal facilities and associated access, car parking and landscaping.

Mr Ormerod of Lilyford Homes, with the aid of a Powerpoint presentation, outlined the proposed redevelopment of 1 Whyke Lane and answered a number of questions from Councillors.

Objection. The proposal removes a community use building without appropriate replacement or justification, contrary to Policy 38 of the Local Plan. The application does not satisfy all 3 criteria of Policy 38. Marketing evidence is not provided. The proposed community use room is small and inappropriately sited within a retirement apartment building and without on-site parking; it is unlikely to be used viably and successfully as a community venue. The design includes dead frontage across much of the building and undercroft parking contrary to point 7 and others within Policy 33. The scale, bulk and busy design of the building, including the proposed mix of materials, would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area. If the planning authority is minded to approve the application, a suitable planning condition relating to archaeological investigation works should be applied, in order to preserve any heritage assets.

It is noted that the developer proposes to permanently remove agricultural land from active food productivity in order to provide nitrate mitigation. The City Council reiterates that this is an inappropriate and unsustainable approach. Food production must be allowed to continue in order to ensure the population, including the occupants of the developments, can be fed.

c) CC/22/02298/FUL

Case Officer: Martin Mew
22A Lavant Road Chichester West Sussex PO19 5RG
Demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of 4 no. dwellings and associated works including new access, garages and lean to extension to plot 2 (amendments to schemes LA Ref: CC/20/01897/FUL and CC/22/00017/FUL).

Objection in respect of the car port and new access for the following reasons:

  • The proposed additional access would impact the character of the area, in which large, detached family homes on generous plots predominate; as it is the building would be more visible as a semi-detached pair.
  • The proposed access would involve the removal of part of the hedge across the frontage. Driver visibility would be impeded by the hedge and tree to plot 1, which may lead to pressure for its removal, as well as potentially resulting in difficult or unsafe egress from the property.
  • The proposed car port would further impact the character of the area, due to an increase in built form forward of the building line. The character of the area is vulnerable in this regard because there are examples of similar development nearby; these are currently the exception rather than a characteristic feature, but further examples must be resisted if the current attractive character is to be preserved.

No objection in respect of the proposed garage and lean-to extensions.


The Chairman presented her report that had been circulated with the agenda.

Members were advised that, where reference to Highways England had been made, this should read National Highways.

The Deputy Mayor asked whether there were any updates from the traffic consultants, PJA, who had been commissioned by the City Council to advise on the proposed Southern Access Route to the Whitehouse Farm development. The Planning Adviser agreed to ask for an update from the consultants.


The Chairman of the Chichester Neighbourhood Plan Working Group, Ash Pal, presented his report to the Committee.

Members were given a short background history of the development of the Neighbourhood Plan to date and where the Working Group considered it was in the process.

The Chairman of the Working Group highlighted two particular areas of interest for the development of wider community involvement. These were:

  • A proposed Chichester Community Collaboration Day to bring a diverse cross section of local groups together to provide input to the project, this to be facilitated by the City Council’s consultant, Feria Urbanism.
  • PLACE (Planning, Landscape, Architecture, Culture and Engineering) workshops to take place on a ward by ward basis and involve smaller groups of interested inidividuals being presented with the initial output of the PLACE surveys that had been undertaken.

He stressed that the PLACE workshops would greatly benefit from the involvement of the appropriate ward councillors in facilitating the meetings.

Members were then advised that the Deputy Mayor had decided to step back from the Neighbourhood Plan Working Group as the City Council’s representative.

Councillors were further advised that the Terms of Reference of the Working Group required what was called a “Qualifying Body Interface” and asked whether there were any volunteers from within the Planning and Conservation Committee.

After a brief discussion, it was AGREED that the matter would be raised at the meeting of the Full Council being held on 14 December 2022 in order that all Councillors would have the opportunity to volunteer. It was further AGREED that the Chairman of the Planning and Conservation Committee would act up in the role in the interim period.

The Chairman of the Working Group then informed the Committee that the proposed Chichester Community Collaboration Day would incur costs to organise and host, not least the cost of commissioning Feria Urbanism to facilitate the meeting.

Members agreed that the Collaboration Day was a positive development and it was RECOMMENDED to the Finance Committee on Monday 21 November 2022 that a costed proposal be presented for debate before any further arrangements were made.

Post meeting note: A costed proposal has been received from Feria Urbanism for the Collaboration Day and consultant attendance at up to three PLACE workshops. This will be presented to the Finance Committee on Monday 21 November 2022


The Deputy Mayor presented his report that had been circulated with the agenda.

He explained that the intention was for a working group to undertake an audit of the city centre and identify works that could be undertaken to tidy up the appearance of the area and improve the appeal for the residents.

Members were advised that the matter would be discussed in more detail at the Community Affairs Committee meeting being held on Monday 14 November 2022.


The Deputy Town Clerk gave Members a verbal update regarding a meeting that had recently taken place between the City Council, West Sussex County Council and Chichester District Council.

Members noted that the County Council was in the process of obtaining quotes for the work in the event that the Levelling Up Fund bid was unsuccessful and that they would report further as appropriate.

Councillors reaffirmed the City Council’s commitment to allocate up to £100,000 from CIL funds as a contribution towards the cost of resurfacing the city centre precinct.

In response to a question from the Deputy Mayor, the Deputy Town Clerk advised Members that the announcement of the outcome of the Levelling Up Fund bid had been pushed back and was not now expected until late December 2022.


In the absence of Councillor Scicluna, Councillor Bell gave Members an update on what was happening with regards to the traffic issues that had been identified in the Pallants area of the city.

He informed the Committee that the Pallants Residents Association was taking a lead role and that a very positive meeting had recently taken place, with officers from West Sussex County Council Highways suggesting ways forward with surveys and creating a plan of action.

He also informed Members that the Pallant House Gallery and other businesses in the area that may be affected by any traffic restrictions were also very supportive.


Councillor Bell reminded Members that he was the new co-ordinator for this group and then presented his report that had been circulated with the agenda.

He highlighted the ongoing informal monitoring and analysis of inputs from parishes next to the A27 and reported that he would be providing updates to these parishes at the end of the month.

Councillor Bell informed Members that he had recently had a discussion with Councillor Alan Sutton (Chichester District Council Member for Fittleworth), who played an active part in a similar action group north of the South Downs; on the subject of noise detecting traffic cameras. He reported that, while the Chichester MP’s bid to use Chichester as a test area for these cameras had not been successful, he was pleased to inform Members that the tests currently under way elsewhere in the country were taking place in city areas which appeared to be a favourable comparison if they were to be deployed to Chichester.

He further reported that Councillor Sutton had informed him that projects currently under way in Chichester, including the default 20mph limit across the City of Chichester being proposed by Councillor Corfield, would be simplified if West Sussex County Council proceeded with implementing a default country lane speed limit of 40 or 50mph.

Councillor Sharp confirmed that the West Sussex County Council Communities, Highways and Environment Scrutiny Committee (CHESC) would be meeting on Friday 18 November 2022, that one of the agenda items was a revision of the Speed Limit Policy and that West Sussex County Council Member Councillor Joy Dennis would be involved as the Cabinet Member for Highways and Transport.

Councillor Bell then highlighted the activities of another action group in Bury, the A29 Action Group, who were very active in the areas of speed limits and traffic noise.

Councillor Gershater raised an example from Switzerland where noise baffles were installed to help tackle the issue.

Councillor Bell informed Members that it was his understanding that noise baffles or similar were being installed where needed at new developments but that this was not being applied to older developments. This was confirmed by Councillor Sharp.

The Chairman proposed that, going forward, the City Council’s responses to housing development applications could include suggestions regarding noise baffles and other noise abatement measures.

In response to a request from Councillor Bell, the Chairman of the Planning and Conservation Committee reiterated the City Council’s support for the activities being undertaken by the RAVEN group.


  • Whitehouse Farm
  • City Centre Task Force
  • Local Plan – Deputy Mayor to report
  • Default 20mph city speed limit – Councillor Corfield to report



The Member Services Support Officer advised Councillors that, due to the office closure over Christmas and New Year, the timings for the agendas and supporting reports for the proposed 5 January 2023 meeting of the Committee would be very tight and that they would have to be issued before the Christmas break.

He suggested to Members, and the Planning Adviser agreed, that any planning applications that would normally have been presented at that meeting could be dealt with by the Planning Adviser under delegated authority in consultation with the Committee Chairman.

After a short further discussion, it was AGREED that the 5 January 2023 meeting be cancelled and the applications at hand at the time be managed in the suggested manner.

The meeting closed at 4.04pm

Skip to content