Five appeals on plans refused by Chichester District Council are dismissed

Watch more of our videos on Shots! 
and live on Freeview channel 276
Visit Shots! now
Inspectors have dismissed five appeals made over planning applications refused by Chichester District Council.

A report into the appeals will be put to a meeting of the planning committee on Wednesday (May 15).

The first was for the redevelopment of Northside, The Parade, in East Wittering.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

In July 2023, the council refused plans to build two shops and eight flats on the site.

The second was a part-retrospective application to station a mobile home at Grist Farm, in Hunston.

The third was an outline application to build 30 homes on land at Streamside Farm, Runcton.

The plans were refused in June 2023, with the council saying they would lead to ‘a fundamental change in the appearance of the site, with a lasting impact on the character of the landscape’.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The fourth application was for 87 flats on land off Longacre Way, Chichester.

Submitted in January 2023, planning officers were less than impressed with the size and look of the proposed building and met with developers Fortitudo Ltd and Hanbury Properties (Chichester) Limited to attempt to work out some changes.

But the discussions came to nothing and the developers launched an appeal for non-determination – essentially saying the council had taken too long to come to a decision.

The final application was to change the use of agricultural buildings at Premier Treecare & Conservation Ltd to a home.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Whilst dismissing these five, the planning inspectorate did allow one appeal.

It was for the demolition and replacement of a home in Park Lane, Selsey.

The council had raised concerns about the proposed design of the new home, which would have two front entrances, making it simple to change it into two properties.

The inspector’s report stated: “I concur with the council that it would be relatively easy to convert the house into two separate units but that does not mean it would happen or is even likely to happen.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“I appreciate the council was not helped by the applicant. The application as submitted made no reference to the personal circumstances of the appellants.

“That was a curious omission and to some extent the appellants have used the appeal process to evolve the scheme with new information that was not before the council when it made its decision.

“Overall, I can understand perfectly well how the council came to the view it did based on the submitted details.

“However, despite my uneasiness over elements of the proposed layout, I cannot say with any degree of certainty whether it was or remains the appellants’ intention to split the property.”

To view the applications, log on to .