Chichester traveller pitches blocked over string of concerns

The proposed pitches were for a site off West Ashling Road <i>(Image: Google)</i>
The proposed pitches were for a site off West Ashling Road (Image: Google)
This article is brought to you by our exclusive subscriber partnership with our sister title USA Today, and has been written by our American colleagues. It does not necessarily reflect the view of The Herald.
Close Icon

Find, save and share Public Notices that affect you in the area.

Search the Public Notice Portal What is the Public Notice Portal?

What is the Public Notice Portal?

The Public Notice Portal carries statutory public notices published in local newspapers and is the fastest and most effective way of finding out what is happening in YOUR neighbourhood.

Search the Public Notice Portal

Planning officials have blocked a proposed new eight-pitch traveller site, after raising a string of concerns.

Chichester District Council (CDC) officers rejected the proposal for a field in West Ashling, north-west of Chichester, on March 26, citing issues including poor living conditions for future residents and "significant" harm that would be caused to the surrounding area.

The applicant had planned for the site to contain eight pitches, each of which would include a mobile home, a touring caravan and a dayroom.

However, council officials said the proposed layout would mean poor living conditions for those who would live on the site.

Rejecting the proposals, planning officers said: "The layout would not promote the health and well-being of future occupiers.

They added: "There is no reasonable justification to provide such a limited area of lawn tucked in the corner of the pitches surrounded by hardstanding."

The council also said the scheme would harm the area's rural character, stating that it would result in "unjustified urbanisation" and eat into the gap between nearby sites.

Safety fears were also raised, concerning a high-pressure gas pipeline running directly beneath the site.

Officials said the applicant had provided insufficient evidence the homes would be kept a safe distance from the hazard.

CDC is currently unable to demonstrate a required five-year supply of suitable gypsy and traveller sites to meet local demand, and the applicant had pointed to this as a reason to grant approval.

However, it was considered that the adverse effects of the development would "significantly" outweigh any benefits.

Planning officers also said the land had been "intentionally degraded" before the application to avoid rules on boosting biodiversity, which do not apply if development is already deemed to have begun. 

The applicant has six months to lodge an appeal against the decision.

Get involved
with the news

Send your news & photos