Skip to navigation
Thursday, 28 February 2019 13:04

Chichester Update

Written by CPRE Sussex

We have a new group forming in Chichester. Please This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if you would like to join CPRE Chichester. At the moment the group is looking at the Local Plan.

CPRE Sussex, Chichester District has lost confidence in the Build A Better A27 group set up last year to heal divisions in the community.

Thursday, 09 November 2017 18:28

Chichester, Winter 2017 Report

Written by CPRE Sussex

Chichester District has seen a number of issues relating to housing and infrastructure over the past year.

CPRE Sussex submitted a representation to the Chichester Bypass Improvements consultation, 2016 on 21 September. The full text is below.

CPRE Sussex is supporting 'Protect Our Rural Environment' (PORE) and voicing concern about the Crouchland Biogas plant in Plaistow, West Sussex.

Thursday, 06 November 2014 12:12

New submissions

Written by CPRE Sussex

Documents submitted by Chichester CPRE Sussex district:

Thursday, 06 November 2014 12:12

New submissions

Written by CPRE Sussex

Documents submitted by Chichester CPRE Sussex district:

CPRE Chichester District responded strongly to an application by Celtique Energie for "exploratory drilling" for shale gas exploration at Kirdford, West Sussex. (WSCC/083/13/KD).

Friday, 30 May 2014 12:18

Update: May 2014

Written by Richard Hill

Update from Chichester District:

Wednesday, 20 November 2013 10:13

Chichester District Report: Winter 2013

Written by Richard Hill

The District Council has lost control over planning applications.

Under para 47 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the 5 year Housing Land Supply (HLS) is based on the District's housing requirements; if that is too high, so also would be the HLS. A typical example was D/12/04410, which proposed 112 houses in Stockbridge. The developers relied on the Council's proposed 5 year HLS, which was too high. After every Parish Council on the Peninsular objected, as did the CPRE and the Harbour Conservancy, planning permission was refused. But on 21 June 2013 the Council re-convened and granted planning permission, without any reference to the previous refusal on the file. That decision was clearly not for sustainable development as required by the NPPF para 197 (and defined in paras 7 and 8, quoting the three dimensions: economic, social and environmental).

Page 1 of 2

join us

Back to top