We are producing another Newsletter so soon after number 1 because there were problems with distribution of the electronic version and we do not know who received it. This Newsletter will only be distributed electronically, as much of the content is very similar. Please accept my apologies if you received number one and you feel we are being intrusive, but there is an interesting new report below about the Tannery. If you want to keep in touch with what is going on around Westgate please visit the website; http://www.westgatera.org.uk/ The “Keep up to date with the latest posts“ section on the right hand side is particularly useful for planning and events.
The local councillors have asked us not to use the acronym WRA as this is already used by the Wyke Residents Association and the councillors are confused! The Westgate Residents Association will be called the WGRA.
We are looking for a logo for the WGRA. Please send in your suggestions to firstname.lastname@example.org. There will be a £10 prize for the winner. Ask the computer experts in your family? Only one entry so far; think about something suitable for an inclusive Association just outside the city gate. A picture of the gate is on the website in the ‘gallery’. Closing date 4th January (as many entries as you like)
The committee are very keen to consult with local residents. This is a very important time. The Whitehouse Farm (WHF) development forms part of the CDC Adopted Local Plan and will almost certainly get planning permission in due course, however it is very important that we monitor the progress and try and influence the system to obtain the best possible conditions for the residents of Westgate. The issues which will cause us the greatest problems are to do with traffic and the creation of a cycle route. If you have any observations or requests please let us know on: email@example.com If you want to know if there is any progress with the planning application and traffic issues visit the WRGA website at: http://www.westgatera.org.uk/category/whitehouse-farm/
Ms Jo Bell, Planning Officer, Chichester District Council, East Pallant House, 1 East Pallant, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 1TY
NOTES ON PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF THE TANNERY, WESTGATE
The Tannery was one of Chichester’s industries. It, together with the Brewery must have made Westgate a smelly street. There’s a picture on the internet of the Tannery in 1928. It’s set in fields and there are no houses to be seen. Interestingly to the south of the site is the long building the subject of the planning application. It’s understood that this building was erected in about 1900.That office block is part of the estate owned by West Sussex County Council. It would seem that the building has been modernised over the years. Until July 2015 it was in use by County architects and surveyors all of whom have been relocated to other WSCC premises. On the front of the site there is a house (65a Westgate) which was used as offices by the Trading Standards Department. They moved out more than a year ago. To the East of no 65 there is No 63 which is vacant but was formerly 4 residential units (63 a to d). There is hard standing for about 50 cars. The car park is in use, presumably by WSCC workers who walk to their office locations. There is a grassed area and many mature trees which form a pleasant visual amenity in the street. West of the site is Tannery Close, a development of houses and apartments carried out by Linden Homes in 2002 or thereabouts. The office block has the benefit of a Permitted Development Consent CC/14/00506/P3JPA) obtained in 2014 for a change of use from offices to 12 x 2 bed and 3 x 1 bed flats. This consent expires on 31st May 2016.
PLANNING APPLICATION Application 15/01590/FUL is with Chichester District Council and is described as pending. The application is for the erection of 11 dwellings, 5 in a terrace having a similar footprint to the office block, and three pairs of semidetached houses. It also covers the change of use of No 65 from offices to residential and the use of No 63a as a single dwelling house. There are numerous documents associated with the application. Several of these relate to the trees on the site. These have been surveyed by the developer’s agent and there is a detailed plan of those that are to be retained and those that are to be lost. Several of the trees are the subject of Tree Preservation Orders. There is a very comprehensive traffic report prepared by consultants for West Sussex County Council. Generally, it finds no traffic objections to the proposed development. However, it should be noted that the report refers to current conditions and not those that might apply after the development of White House Farm. The report is worth reading in the context of WHF. There is a substantive objection by Chichester District Council to the proposed change of use from offices to residential. The approved Local Plan (Para 6.9) seeks to safeguard the existing stock of employment sites and premises. This includes strong policy protection against the loss of existing land and premises to other uses where sites are well located and have a realistic prospect of re-use for employment purposes. The Economic Development Service of Chichester D C does not support the proposed development. For the developer to overcome this strategic objection it will be necessary to show that there is no demand for such office space. According to the Local Plan this will normally mean that real efforts are made to market the site over a period of 2 years “or a reasonable period based on the current economic climate”. The question of sewerage has also to be addressed and the mix of housing has been discussed. The WSCC has commissioned various expert reports on the state of the building and its value. It is claimed that the building needs refurbishment to provide 13,530 sq ft of modern offices at a cost of £1.5million. The estimated current value is said to be £900K or £1.25 million taking into account the benefit of the Permitted Development Consent. Therefore, it is claimed that an office scheme isnot viable. Agents, including Henry Adams, have been consulted and have reported that there is no great demand for office space in Chichester. Henry Adams have an advertising board attached to the building and one at the front of the site at the back of the footpath. They are also listing the property on their website suggesting that the building would be suitable as an headquarters office building.
SUGGESTED ACTION BY WGRA Write to CDC to register our interest and to make the following points • note that the application does not accord with the Local Plan • if residential development is to be granted planning permission consider traffic implications especially in light of the WHF proposals • ensure high standard of design and materials • protect existing trees during development and retain thereafter, planting additional trees andsoft landscaping to preserve visual amenities of the site • control working hours and access during construction period Brian J. Bird, 11th December 2015
ASSOCIATION REPRESENTATIVES At the recent WRGA committee meeting a number of representatives were identified who had agreed to help with various tasks:
Committee: Richard Brownfield (chair) 9 Westgate; Colin Hicks (secretary) The Cottage, 15 Westgate; Tony Schofield (treasurer) 34 Westgate; Brian Bird 54 Westgate; Anthony Quail 44 Westgate; Brian Raincock 4 Mount Lane; Paula Street 77 Westgate; Vince Waldron 72 Westgate; Sandra Young 15 Westgate. Locality Representatives, who help with distribution and local issues in addition to committee members: Fred Barber, 89 Westgate Annette Hutcheson, 16 St Bartholomew’s Close Bebette Jones, 6 Tannery Close Sue Doggart, 3b Westgate David Tregear, 36 Henty Gardens Lighting PFI: Mark McJennett, 39 Westgate Tree Warden: Brian Hopkins, 15 Henty Gardens Traffic Group: John Davies, 31 Westgate Dan Kirtley, 20A Westgate Members of the committee have agreed to take on other rolls, but we are still looking for a representative on ‘Police Liaison’. Volunteers for a group to tidy up the planters in the spring will also be sought.
MERRY CHRISTMAS And finally, may I take this opportunity on behalf of the whole committee, to wish you and yours a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.