‘Overbearing’ plan for homes in Chichester refused

Residents of  Cleveland Road and Littlefield Road fought proposals for a devleopment behind their homes
Residents of Cleveland Road and Littlefield Road fought proposals for a devleopment behind their homes

A PLAN to build four homes on the site of 18 garages was turned down at appeal because it would affect the living conditions of its neighbours.

Proposals by Sussex Property Investments Ltd outlined designs for three houses and one flat behind Cleveland Road in Chichester.

But planning inspector Edward Gerry followed in the footsteps of Chichester District Council planning officers and refused the application.

Residents of Cleveland Road who objected to the plans welcomed the news.

“We are happy that commonsense has prevailed on this occasion,” said resident Sally Arnold, whose garden backs on to the proposed site.

“While we appreciate the national housing demand, we are relieved that standards have not slipped so much as to allow this wholly unsuitable land to be developed for housing.”

When the application was first submitted to Chichester District Council last year, there was concern about several aspects of the application.

One of these concerns was the access from Cleveland Road.

Residents said the pinch point’ of the access was only 2.4m wide – with brick walls either side.

“A fire engine is 2.9 metres,” resident Carley Sitwell told the Observer.

“They can’t get a fire engine, refuse truck or developers’ vehicles through here. They have to be realistic.”

Other residents said building homes on the site would be ‘overcrowding’ and parking on the street would be stretched to the limit.

The planning inspector agreed, and said the development would be ‘oppressive and overbearing’ for surrounding neighbours.

He was also concerned about anyone who would move into the proposed homes.

“The proposed development would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to private amenity space, he said.

He said although the plans were for a brownfield site, this did not make up for the ‘unacceptable harm’ the site would have on neighbours.

Parking, highway safety and accessibility were among other reasons he turned down the appeal.