LETTER: A quick buck

0
Have your say

IN THE article ‘What next for Portfield FC site’ (January 29) Cllr Josef Ransley implies that an extension of time should have been granted because the outline application had already given approval to the essence of the scheme.

But surely the point of time limits on planning approvals is that situations change over time.

After five years of non-implementation, it is right that the whole proposal is reconsidered in the light of current conditions, needs and implications.

In this instanc, planning committee members have learnt from recent applications that the car parking standards of 1.1 / 1.2 per dwelling are totally inadequate for this type of development.

Also they had cause to reflect on their previous decision to approve the outline application by the narrowest possible margin of the chairman’s casting vote.

Some of the main issues which brought doubt and concern into the minds of the majority of the planning committee related to concern about the high density (53dpi), small back gardens, and exacerbation of traffic problems in the area.

Ideally, the landowner should establish a fundamental review of the use of this site in the light of all the critical comment on the present proposals.

If this is not forthcoming then hopefully there will at least be a less dense design with substantially more designated car parking. When eventually the houses are occupied, we trust, the owners won’t have the worry of driving home from work wondering if they will be able to park anywhere near their home or will have to leave their car in the nearby retail car park.

I have heard that the cemetery may soon have to start preparing and using the strip of land that has been reserved from the development site.

As the whole site was originally bought by the town council in 1932 for

future expansion of the cemetery, might we expect that in 50 years’ time the then council will be saying ‘why on earth was that land sold for housing in 2015 causing us to construct a new cemetery elsewhere?’

I previously mentioned the expectations we might have of a responsible landowner for this site. Of course landowner means us – citizens of Chichester!

However, we rely on our district councillors, and especially the cabinet members, to represent us.

I believe these councillors’ have a moral responsibility to fully consider the overall situation rather than look through the blinkered eyes of a developer seeking to make a ‘quick buck’.

Juliet Mee,

Westhampnett Road, Chichester