DOCSLIB.ORG

Chichester District Council Electoral Review 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Chichester District Council Electoral Review 2016 CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL ELECTORAL REVIEW 2016 NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR CHICHESTER DISTRICT COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND’S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS October 2016 Contents Summary Page 3 Commentary Page 4 Map Page 9 2 Summary Chichester District Council supports the Commission’s draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements for Chichester District Council, with the following exceptions: (1) Its proposal to include the parish of Elsted & Treyford in Midhurst Ward. Instead this parish should be included in Harting Ward, as in the Council’s original submission, on the grounds that in this case the criteria of community identity and effective and convenient local government should outweigh the fairly marginal electoral inequality. (2) Its proposals for the proposed Bosham & Donnington and North Mundham & Tangmere wards are accepted, but the wards should be named respectively Harbour and Tangmere Wards. (3) Its proposal to transfer Velyn Avenue from Chichester South Ward to Chichester Central Ward; the flats on the western side of Velyn Avenue, with Peter Weston Close should be so transferred but the eastern and southern sides of Velyn Avenue should remain with the rest of Whyke in Chichester South Ward with which it has more community identity. (4) Its proposal to transfer the Pound Farm area from Chichester South Ward to Chichester East Ward, thus creating a very small and unviable city council ward. Under the Commission’s proposal, electors in this area will be in Chichester South for County Council elections, Chichester East for District Council elections, and Chichester Pound Farm for City Council elections. This will be confusing for electors, and is not conducive to convenient and effective local government. (5) The name of its proposed Chichester Portfield Ward; Chichester Arundel Park Ward is preferred. 3 Commentary 1. We have considered the consultation document setting out the Commission’s draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements for Chichester District Council, and we have drawn it to the attention of the West Sussex County Council, parish councils, political parties and other interested organisations and individuals. We have invited them to comment upon it to the Commission and have also asked that they make known their views to us. Where they have done so we have taken their views into account. 2. We welcome: a. The Commission’s acceptance of the electorate forecasts for 2021 provided by the Council as “the best available at the present time” and its use of them to produce its draft recommendations. b. The Commission’s confirmation of its provisional view in support of the Council’s recommendation for a reduction in the number of councillors to 36. c. That, with three exceptions (on which we comment below), the Commission’s draft recommendations follow the Council’s own proposals. 3. We have decided that we should comment only on the Commission’s proposals that differ from our original submission. There seems no point in re-opening issues where the LGBCE has adopted our proposals, even where they were controversial and divided opinion among ourselves, such as the proposals for Selsey and Sidlesham. The Commission has considered, and comments upon, these matters, but follows our original proposal. 4. The Commission’s draft recommendations differ from our proposals, where the latter involve the creation of wards with a variance of + or – 10% from the average. There are also some variations within the City of Chichester. We comment on these matters below. Harting Ward. 5. We proposed a single-member Harting Ward with a projected electorate of 3,054, a variance of +11%, comprising the four parishes of Harting, Rogate, Trotton with Chithurst and Elsted & Treyford. Although we acknowledged that this was slightly above the 10% threshold, both Trotton with Chithurst and Elsted & Treyford had stated that they had more affinity with this ward and with each other than with parishes to the east and north. 6. The Commission proposes detaching Elsted & Treyford parish and including this in the two-member Midhurst Ward. Its report states (paras 30-31):- “30 We received two submissions relating to Harting ward. It was acknowledged that this ward had over 10% more electors than the average for the district. It was suggested that either Elsted & Treyford parish or Trotton with Chithurst parish could be transferred to Midhurst or Linchmere wards, respectively. However, this was rejected on the basis of community identity. We 4 also received good evidence for the community links between Trotton with Chithurst and the parishes within the proposed Harting ward. “31 We have carefully considered the evidence received, but consider the electoral variance for this proposed ward to be somewhat high. We have examined the proposal to transfer Elsted & Treyford parish to Midhurst ward. Our tour of the area confirmed that while Elsted & Treyford parish clearly has links to the parishes in Harting ward, it also has reasonable road links to Midhurst. Transferring Elsted & Treyford to Midhurst would improve electoral equality. We are therefore transferring Elsted & Treyford parish to Midhurst as part of our draft recommendations.” 7. We believe that Elsted & Treyford Parish Council has put forward equally valid evidence to that submitted by Trotton with Chithurst Parish Councils of its community links with other parishes in Harting Ward. 8. Since the Commission published its draft recommendations, further evidence and representations have been received from the Harting, Elsted & Treyford and Trotton with Chithurst Parish Councils, the Midhurst Town Council and the existing district councillor, Andrew Shaxson, who is also a member of the Harting and Elsted & Treyford Parish Councils. We believe these representations have been made directly to the Commission and so we do not repeat them in detail here. 9. Those objections emphasised the closeness of community ties between the four parishes in our proposed Harting Ward, including significant working together between Elsted & Treyford and Trotton with Chithurst Parish Councils and the possibility of a common council (ie one parish council for two parishes). Representations supporting the Council’s original proposal and opposing the transfer of Elsted & Treyford Parish to Midhurst Ward from Midhurst Town Council point to the fact that significant additional development may be expected in Midhurst but not in Harting Ward and to the difficulties in representing such a mix of rural and urban communities. 10. We consider that, in this case, considerations of community identity and convenient and effective local government should outweigh the fairly marginal electoral imbalance and that Elsted & Treyford should be included in Harting Ward. Bosham to Tangmere area 11. The Council proposed: • A two-member Bosham Ward, with a projected electorate of 3,132, a variance of +14%, comprising the parishes of Chidham & Hambrook, Bosham, and Fishbourne (except Appledram Lane South). • A single-member Donnington Ward, with a projected electorate of 3,012, a variance of +10%, comprising the parishes of Donnington, Appledram (with Appledram Lane South), and Hunston. 5 • A single member Oving Ward, with a projected electorate of 2,341, a variance of -15%, comprising the parishes of North Mundham and Oving. • A single member Tangmere Ward, with a projected electorate of 2,472, a variance of -10%, comprising Tangmere Parish. 12. The Commission proposes to substitute for this: • a three-member Bosham & Donnington ward, comprising the parishes of Chidham & Hambrook, Bosham, Fishbourne, Appledram and Donnington, with a projected electorate of 8,355, a variance of +1%, • a two-member North Mundham and Tangmere Ward, comprising the parishes of Hunston, North Mundham, Oving and Tangmere, with a projected electorate of 5,734, a variance of +4%, 13. The increase in the number of multi-member wards is not entirely satisfactory but we have been unable to come up with a better solution, without either dividing parishes (which we would be loth to do) or re-creating the significant electoral inequality which the Commission’s recommendation seeks to eliminate. 14. We are aware that West Sussex County Council’s submission in response to the Commission’s draft recommendations raises concerns over the projected electorate for this area. We acknowledge that there is some uncertainty about the pace of development in Oving and Tangmere parishes, both of which contain strategic development locations. However, we believe that WSCC’s submission has been predicated on the developers’ own forecasts, which are rather more optimistic than ours. We do not believe that there is firm enough evidence to revise our projections at this stage and remain confident that our own projected population estimates are realistic. We, therefore, support the Commission’s proposals, and do not support WSCC’s arguments which we believe to be based on unsubstantiated data. Further, if we were to concede to the argument put forward that, since the review has been delayed the population forecasts for this ward should be revised, we ought to revisit all ward electorate forecasts which would not be practicable at this stage of the review, and would be unlikely to materially change the projections. At some point a line has to be drawn and we believe the Commission has done so in accepting our forecasts. As explained in paragraph 44 of the Commission’s report, there is some headroom to enable a certain amount
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Meadowlands in Time: Re-Envisioning the Lost Meadows of the Rother Valley, West Sussex, UK
    Meadowlands in time: Re-envisioning the lost meadows of the Rother valley, West Sussex, UK Alastair W. Pearson 1 and Philip J. Soar 2 1 Department of Geography, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 3HE, UK. [email protected] (corresponding author) +44(0)23 9284 2472 2 Department of Geography, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth PO1 3HE, UK. [email protected] +44(0)23 9284 2482 1 Meadowlands in time: Re-envisioning the lost meadows of the Rother valley, West Sussex, UK Abstract Historically, meadows provided an essential crop of hay and common grazing in a delicately managed sustainable system in harmony with their environment and were of vital importance to the agricultural cycle of farming communities. Using archival and remotely sensed data, this paper provides a speculative re-construction of a former floodplain water management system and examines the changing fortunes of the floodplain meadows of the Rother valley, West Sussex, revealing the process of change in both the physical and cultural landscape. The inevitable decline of the floodplain meadows of the Rother was part of a nationwide transformation brought about by the introduction of new farming practices operating in a fast- changing tenurial landscape, dominated by th e growth of landed estates where commoners ’ rights were viewed with growing contempt. Today, the current vista of the Rother reveals only remnants of the past landscape where marginal habitats, riparian fringes and meadows have made way for a monoculture of permanent pasture of poor conservation value, supporting low biodiversity and offering little to mitigate against flood risk and poor water quality.
    [Show full text]
  • New-Lipchis-Way-Route-Guide.Pdf
    Liphook River Rother Midhurst South New Downs South Lipchis Way Downs LIPHOOK Midhurst RAMBLERS Town Council River Lavant Singleton Chichester Footprints of Sussex Pear Tree Cottage, Jarvis Lane, Steyning, West Sussex BN44 3GL East Head Logo design – West Sussex County Council West Wittering Printed by – Wests Printing Works Ltd., Steyning, West Sussex Designed by – [email protected] 0 5 10 km © 2012 Footprints of Sussex 0 5 miles Welcome to the New New Lipchis Way This delightful walking trail follows existing rights of way over its 39 mile/62.4 kilometre route from Liphook, on Lipchis Way the Hampshire/West Sussex border, to East Head at the entrance to Chichester Harbour through the heart of the South Downs National Park.. Being aligned north-south, it crosses all the main geologies of West Sussex from the greensand ridges, through Wealden river valleys and heathlands, to the high chalk downland and the coastal plain. In so doing it offers a great variety of scenery, flora and fauna. The trail logo reflects this by depicting the South Downs, the River Rother and Chichester Harbour. It can be walked energetically in three days, bearing in mind that the total ‘climb’ is around 650 metres/2,000 feet. The maps divide it into six sections, which although unequal in distance, break the route into stages that allow the possible use of public transport. There is a good choice of accommodation and restaurants in Liphook, Midhurst and Chichester, elsewhere there is a smattering of pubs and B&Bs – although the northern section is a little sparse in that respect.
    [Show full text]
  • Selsey NP Decision Statement July 2020
    F11f Chichester District Council Chichester District Council Local Planning Authority Selsey Neighbourhood Plan 2014 - 2029 DECISION STATEMENT 1. Introduction 1.1 Under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), the Council has a statutory duty to assist communities in the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans and Orders and to take plans through a process of examination, referendum and adoption. The Localism Act 2011 (Part 6 Chapter 3) sets out the local planning authority’s responsibilities for Neighbourhood Planning. 1.2 This report confirms that the modifications proposed in the examiner’s report have been accepted, the draft Selsey Neighbourhood Plan has been altered as a result of it and that this plan may now proceed to referendum. 2. Background 2.1 The Selsey Neighbourhood Development Plan relates to the area that was designated by Chichester District Council as a neighbourhood area on 4 December 2012. This area is coterminous with the Selsey Town Council boundary that lies within the Chichester District Council local planning authority area. 2.2 Following the submission of the Selsey Neighbourhood Plan to the Council, the plan was publicised and representations were invited. The publicity period ended on 23 March 2018. 2.3 Mr John Slater was appointed by Chichester District Council, with the consent of Selsey Town Council, to undertake the examination of the Selsey Neighbourhood Development Plan and to prepare a report of the independent examination. 2.4 The examiner’s report concludes that, subject to making modifications recommended by the examiner, the Plan meets the basic conditions set out in the legislation and should proceed to a Neighbourhood Plan referendum.
    [Show full text]
  • Chichester District Council V Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1640 (09 October 2019)
    Case Name: Chichester District Council v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities And Local Government & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1640 (09 October 2019) Full case: Click Here Commentary: The Court of Appeal found that an Inspector had not erred in law in his application of paragraph 198 NPFF which states that where a planning application conflicts with a neighbourhood plan it should normally not be granted. The decision of the lower Court was upheld. The Appeal was made by Chichester District Council against the judgment of Upper Tribunal Judge Grubb, sitting as a Deputy Judge in the High Court, who held that a Planning Inspector had not erred in his application of paragraph 198 NPPF in permitting an appeal against the refusal by the Appellant of a planning permission for 34 homes outside of the boundary of the village of Southborne. The Inspector found that the planning application was in conflict with two policies of the Chichester Local Plan and that it would not accord with the aims of the relevant Neighbourhood Plan. However, the development proposals would not conflict with the policies of that neighbourhood plan. As the Appellant could not demonstrate a five-year housing supply the Inspector applied the presumption in favour of sustainable development in paragraph 14 NPPF and allowed the appeal. This decision was upheld by the High Court. The Court of Appeal held that the concept set out in paragraph 198 NPPF is straightforward and does not elevate the status of the neighbourhood plan within the development plan as a whole, nor does it alter the presumption that planning decisions must be made in accordance with a development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
    [Show full text]
  • COVID-19 Response Chichester Update
    COVID-19 Response Chichester update 8 January 2021 COVID-19 vaccination programme in Chichester District The vaccination programme for the Chichester District has started and we want to provide you with an update on where we are up to and what is likely to happen over the coming weeks. We also have frequently asked questions available on the Sussex Health and Care Partnership website https://www.sussexhealthandcare.uk/keepsussexsafe/sussex-covid-19- vaccination-programme/faqs-about-the-covid-19-vaccine/ How is the vaccination programme being delivered? There are a number of ways in which the vaccination is being rolled out to our communities: A GP-led vaccination service is where most people living in the district will currently receive their vaccination. At the moment, each area has been allocated one site, but in the case of the district, there are four sites – which is great news for residents and means that the vaccination can be given to as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Hospital hubs – local hospitals across the country have begun giving the vaccine to people over 80 who are attending for a planned appointment and frontline health and care staff. St Richard’s Hospital began providing the vaccination in this way this week. Roving service - the vaccine will be taken into care homes and into people’s own homes if they cannot attend a vaccination site. This is being stepped up over the coming weeks as more supplies of the vaccines become available. Large vaccination centres – each county will have one large vaccination centre which will be able to give the vaccine to large numbers of people.
    [Show full text]
  • Midhurst Sense of Place
    Midhurst Sense of Place Produced as part of the Midhurst Vision by the Sense of Place Working Group September 2009 Cover image courtesy of Michael Chevis www.michaelchevis.com Contents 5 Foreword 6 Introduction 9 Context 12 Sense of Place Aims 13 Sense of Place Process 15 Activity 17 Physical Setting 20 Meaning 23 Sense of Place Definition 26 Place Making 31 Place Reading 36 Place Marketing 38 Potential Actions and Projects 39 Next Steps 40 Summary 42 Acknowledgements 43 Appendix 44 Key Design Principles 50 Terms of Reference 5 Foreword Like may towns throughout the UK, Midhurst has a range of unique qualities. Yet as a result of social and economic change it faces competition from neighbouring destinations like Chichester, Petersfield, Haselmere and Guildford. Chichester District Council recognised this problem and through a series of projects (aimed at supporting the local economy), engaged with the community to help identify key areas of development and regeneration. Whilst residents may have strong emotional links to their town or village, it is becoming increasingly important to understand and reveal the innate qualities and character of a place to attract visitors and compete with other towns in their region. However, it may be difficult to express what defines a ‘place’, but it is important to do so, to ensure that any support given by way of physical improvement or economic development, is appropriate and does not lead to the loss of individuality and regional identity. Understanding that Midhurst’s future prosperity is dependent on finding a way to manage change whilst maintaining a genuine and authentic sense of place, it became clear that a process was required to capture and articulate these unique aspects to help develop plans for the future.
    [Show full text]
  • Parish Emergency Plan, a Copy of Which Wil L Be Lodged with C DC , Fits with the Inter - Agency Arrangements
    PA RISH E MERGENC Y PLAN Adopted 3 December 2020 Date of revision Comments 1 INDEX Section 1 Emergency Arrangements Section 2 Emergency Coordinator Section 3 Volunteers Section 4 Council and Emergency Services Section 5 Advice for Emergency Situations Section 6 Parish Tem porary Accommoda tion Section 7 Services, Voluntary Groups, Media Section 8 Parish Councillors Section 9 District & County Councillors, Member of Parliament Section 10 Health & Safe ty Guidan ce Section 11 Local Map 2 Section 1 - EMER GENCY ARRANG EM ENTS M ajor Emergency The definition of a ‘Major Incident’ or ‘Major Emergency’ as supplied by CDC (CDC) is, “an incident endangering or likely to endanger life and property that to deal wit h would b e beyond the scope and facilities of normal da y to day operation al capabilities of those services responding”. Such incidents can occur anywhere at any time and often without warning. Response In normal circumstances the response to a major emer gency wou ld come from the inter - agency arrangements for malised between th e Emergency Services and C DC . Sussex Police would probably take the initial lead in co - ordinating the operation. In these circumstances the role of the Parish Council at a major emer gency aff ecting the Parish woul d be to assist the Emergency Services and CDC when requested by providing local knowledge and resources including organising local volunteers. Operations would come under the direction of the Police or District Council. It is theref or e important that this Parish Emergency Plan, a copy of which wil l be lodged with C DC , fits with the inter - agency arrangements.
    [Show full text]
  • [2020] ECC Chi 1 13 February 2020
    Neutral Citation Number: [2020] ECC Chi 1 13 February 2020 In the Consistory Court of the Diocese of Chichester No 1120 In the matter of St Mary, Chithurst And in the matter of the petition of (1) Neil Ryder and (2) Darren Stiles on behalf of Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council Judgment 1. This is at heart a straightforward petition: some may consider it trivial. It concerns a proposal to fell an ash tree. However experience suggests that such proposals can generate strong local feeling as was the case following the delivery of the Court’s judgment in Re St Peter, West Blatchington [2019] ECC Chi 4, which attracted some attention in the local and national press. 2. The petition is dated 26 January 2020 and was received in the registry on 28 January 2020. The petitioners are (1) Mr Neil Ryder and (2) Mr Darren Stiles, who are, respectively the clerk to, and chairman of, Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council. It appears to be common ground that the churchyard of St Mary’s church, Chithurst was closed by Order in Council on 8 August 1901 and that responsibility for its care and maintenance was subsequently passed by the Parochial Church Council (ecclesiastical) to the Parish Council (civil) pursuant to the statutory forerunner of section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972. I have been provided with a copy of the Order in Council but not of the notice of transfer but there seems to be no dispute as to its existence and effect. 3. The first petitioner has raised a number of matters in his written representations to the Court which have required a lengthier judgment than might otherwise have been the case.
    [Show full text]
  • HOUGHTONS A4 4Pp.Indd
    Houghtons East Harting • WEst sussEx Houghtons East Harting, Petersfield, West sussex, gu31 5Lu an exceptional renovation opportunity, in an unspoilt location, with stunning views of the south Downs South Harting - 1 mile Petersfield - 5.5 miles (London Waterloo 66 minutes) Midhurst - 7.5 miles Chichester - 12 miles Haslemere - 16 miles (London Waterloo 56 minutes) London - 60 miles (Distances and times are approximate) accommodation and amenities Hall ◆ Sitting/Dining room ◆ Conservatory ◆ Kitchen ◆ WC ◆ Cellar Three bedrooms ◆ Bathroom Garage ◆ Studio/Games room ◆ Mature gardens ◆ Paddock In all approximately 4.293 acres situation ◆ Houghtons, which is unlisted, occupies a magnificent position in East Harting with stunning views of the South Downs and the surrounding countryside. East Harting sits on the West Sussex/Hampshire border, in the South Downs National Park, and is one of the most sought-after and unspoilt hamlets within the south of England. The nearby village of South Harting provides a highly-regarded village shop, a post office, hair dressing salon and the popular public house The White Hart Inn. To the west is the popular town of Petersfield which has a mainline station providing access into London Waterloo in 66 minutes. To the east is the town of Midhurst and to the south is the cathedral city of Chichester. The A3 at Petersfield, which is within easy reach, provides direct access to both London and the South Coast, as well as the national motorway network and the international airports of Gatwick, Heathrow and Southampton. Journey times on the A3 have been greatly improved since the opening of the Hindhead tunnel in 2011.
    [Show full text]
  • SUSSEX Extracted from the Database of the Milestone Society
    Entries in red - require a photograph SUSSEX Extracted from the database of the Milestone Society National ID Grid Reference Road No. Parish Location Position SX_BRGF18 TQ 218 265 A281 LOWER BEEDING under trees by the road SX_BRPF28 SU 97744 21669 A283 PETWORTH New Street, by "Milestone" cottage in brick boundary wall by gate pillar SX_BRPF29 SU 96337 21837 A272 TILLINGTON Tillington Cottage, 100m E of jct with Upperton Road in stone boundary wall SX_BRPF35 SU 87199 21785 A272 MIDHURST Heathbarn Farm, by Edward Lawrence Studio on grass verge in lay-by barn wall of farm SX_BRPF36 SU 869 218 A272 MIDHURST 400m W of Midhurst Toll House by the road SX_BRPF38 SU 841 223 A272 TROTTON WITH CHITHURST Trotton Common, 50m E of turn to Chithurst in deep hedge SX_CCHV02 SU 825 048 A259 FISHBOURNE Milestone Cottages as gate post on green between old & new roads, 5m from old SX_CCHV03 SU 81085 05321 UC road (was A259) BOSHAM Old Bridge Road; Broadbridge road SX_CCHV05 SU 77863 05494 A259 (was A27) SOUTHBOURNE Chichester Road; Nutbourne, opp. service station on the verge/front garden of "Dover" Gosden Green, E of public footpath, W of "Weston SX_CCHV06 SU 76372 05676 A259 SOUTHBOURNE House" by corner of hedge SX_CCMD01 SU 85845 06783 A286 CHICHESTER between Broadway and the Avenue, opp. Tudor Close on the verge in front of wall to flats SX_CCMD03 SU 85766 08372 A286 CHICHESTER Lavant, by Earl of March PH by car park entrance on grass verge SX_CCMD09 SU 87836 17601 A286 COCKING Milestone Garage edge of forecourt at corner of canopy SX_CCMD12 SU 88906
    [Show full text]
  • Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council to the LGCBE Draft Recommendations for Chichester District
    “Steps”, Trotton, Nr Petersfield, West Sussex, GU31 5JS Response by Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council to the LGCBE Draft Recommendations for Chichester District Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council considered the draft recommendations at a meeting held on Wednesday 14th. September 2016. We are delighted that the proposal to move Trotton from Harting ward was rejected. However, we continue to have grave concerns regarding the proposal to move Elsted and Treyford Parish from Harting ward to Midhurst ward. Our response to the initial consultation included four points relating directly to Elsted parish, and we would repeat and strengthen these here: 1. Trotton no longer has a school, shop, village green, sports ground, village hall or public house and must rely on its neighbours' facilities. Our population centre (albeit a small one) is situated to the south of our parish, about a mile from the public house at Lower Elsted, which hosts events for Trotton residents each month. The Village hall and sports ground at Elsted give a good view across Trotton and are often used by Trotton residents. Trotton and Elsted Parishes are similar in size and nature and the two Parish councils have recently been exploring options for closer working, including the potential for a Common Parish Council. We have strong links to Elsted, which in turn has strong links with Harting Parish. 2. Like our neighbours in Elsted parish, Trotton also has strong links to its larger neighbour Rogate as the two parishes share a Rector across the four churches which make up the United Benefice. Given the small size and sparse facilities of our parish, we also value our links with Rogate for its school and for allowing us to combine with them for celebrations such as the recent Queen’s birthday.
    [Show full text]
  • Submission Draft Core Spatial Strategy
    • the business does not provide, or have potential to have strengthened their retail “offer”. In the City, provide, the high quality job opportunities in it is essential that the correct balance be struck appropriate locations promoted in the Economic between allowing more retail development where Development Strategy; and appropriate and protecting and enhancing the • there is no demand for employment use on the historic character and environment as highlighted site, based on a detailed marketing assessment. in the recent Conservation Area Character Appraisal. The Retail Study forecast a demand for Proposals for the redevelopment to non-employment up to 47,760sq.m. of comparison floorspace and uses of existing employment sites will be refused up to 3,790sq.m. of convenience floorspace in the unless the applicant demonstrates, to the satisfaction District up to 2017. It would not be possible to of the local planning authority, that there is no demand accommodate all this demand in an acceptable for employment use on the site, based on a detailed way . While some renewal and extension of marketing assessment. buildings might be possible, few sites are likely to be suitable for significant redevelopment. Equally, Retailing and retail centres edge-of-centre opportunities are likely to be limited. Any large-scale expansion of retailing in 307. Chichester District has a relatively affluent, but Chichester City is only likely to be possible older age profile when compared to the national through the planned expansion of out-of-town average. This means that there is a strong provision, but extensive out-of-centre available retail spend, although the highly mobile development could damage the centre.
    [Show full text]