Chichester District Council
Agenda item

Agenda item

Review of Character Appraisal and Management Proposals for Selsey Conservation Area and Implementation of Associated Recommendations Including Designation of a New Conservation Area in East Selsey to be Named Old Selsey

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report, its six appendices and the three background papers (the second of which is published with these agenda papers and the first and third of which are already available in the public domain) and to make the following resolutions:

 

(1)  That the revised Character Appraisal and Management Proposals for Selsey Conservation Area, attached at appendix 1 to this report, be approved as a material consideration in planning decisions.

 

(2)  That the recommended changes to the Selsey conservation area as shown on the maps at appendix 2 to this report be approved.

 

(3)  That a new conservation area Old Selsey be designated to cover parts of East Street and Albion Road as shown on the map at appendix 3 to this report.

 

(4)  That the draft Character Appraisal and Management Proposals for Old Selsey Conservation Area, attached at appendix 4 to this report, be approved as a material consideration in planning decisions.

 

(5)  That the implementation of an Immediate Article 4 Direction to cover minor alterations, as set out in appendix 6 to this report, to the principal elevations of dwellings within the Selsey, as amended, and the new Old Selsey conservation area be approved.

 

(6)  That the implementation of a non-immediate Article 4 Direction to cover installation of solar panels on the principal elevations of buildings within the Selsey conservation area, as amended, and the new Old Selsey conservation area be approved, as recommended in section 7 below be approved.

 

(7)  That decisions to confirm and/or implement, or otherwise the Directions referred to in 3.5 and 3.6 above be taken by the Head of Planning Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Housing and Planning and Ward members for each of the conservation areas concerned within six months of the Directions being made.

Decision:

RESOLVED

 

That this item be deferred in its entirety to enable officers to enter into further dialogue with Selsey Town Council and Chichester District Council ward members for Selsey with regard to whether or not Selsey High Street should retain its designation status as a Conservation Area and that a further report be submitted to the Cabinet in due course.   

Minutes:

The Cabinet considered (a) the agenda report, its six appendices and the second of three background papers (copies attached to the official minutes). The other two background papers had been published on CDC's website by way of an agenda supplement (copy attached to the official minutes).

 

The agenda papers had been published in black and white and so in order to assist in understanding the two maps on pages 160 and 161 (Selsey Conservation Area and Old Selsey Conservation Area respectively) were shown in colour on the screen in the meeting room during this item.  

 

The report was presented by Mrs Taylor.

 

Miss Le Vay, Mr Allgrove and Mr Frost were in attendance.

 

Mrs Taylor summarised the report with reference to Selsey’s distinctive history and the chronology of the conservation area designations for the town. She described the bi-partite nature of the existing Selsey Conservation Area and also the boundaries of the proposed Old Selsey Conservation Area vis-à-vis the extant designation. She referred to the appraisal document in appendix 1 and the responses received to the public consultation in appendix 5 (save for Selsey Town Council’s (STC) submission these were generally in favour). STC’s view that the current Conservation Area designation should be revoked was set out in its letter dated 14 September 2016 (the second background paper, pages 226 to 227) and in para 10.3 of the report. Officers’ response to the consultation representations (in particular to STC) were summarised in paras 10.4 and 10.5. Section 7 of the report addressed the proposed making of immediate and non-immediate Article 4 Directions.

 

Miss Le Vay elaborated on the reasons why officers did not agree with STC’s contention that the existing Conservation Area designation should be revoked. She advised that in appendix 4 to the Selsey Conservation Area review document (page 158) the reference to ‘a Supplementary Planning Document in the emerging Local Plan for Chichester District’ (second para) required amending to refer to the emerging Chichester Local Plan Review. She also intimated the need for a further recommendation to delegate authority to the Head of Planning Services in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning to make typographical changes and other minor amendments.

 

Mr Dignum said that he had acceded to a request by Mr J C P Connor, one of the three CDC Selsey North ward members to read out a statement on the STC proposal. This statement set out Mr Connor’s opinion that the northern section of the High Street should remain designated and that the southern half should be the subject of further discussion between CDC officers and STC members as to how to resolve the impasse (Mr Connor’s position was not shared by STC).

 

As Mr Connor was indisposed and unable to attend this meeting, at Mr Dignum’s request Mr Connor’s three-page statement (copy attached to the official minutes) was read out in full by the Democratic Services representative present.

 

At Mr Dignum’s invitation Miss Le Vay responded to Mr Connor’s views and proposal.  With reference to the map shown on the screen she pointed out both the number of listed buildings and the number of buildings which made a positive contribution to the extant Conservation Area. She acknowledged the existence of a cluster of buildings which had a negative impact on the street-scene/area and were in need of improvement. The purpose of the Conservation Area was in part to secure (and not to stifle) better quality development (which did not have to mean a replication of old styles). The aim should be to achieve a step-change in development but avoiding mediocre, average design. In the officers’ professional judgment the area had not deteriorated to such an extent that de-designation of the conservation area status could be justified. A partial revocation would not be easily achieved and would necessitate a complete rewriting of the review appraisal document. Nonetheless she was open to discuss these issues with STC.

 

During the debate Mr Finch made two contributions in which he thanked Miss Le Vay for her report, acknowledged with interest Mr Connor’s view that total de-designation was a step too far and emphasised the need to accord respect to STC’s views because STC had a democratic mandate on behalf of its residents and the democratic principle should not be overlooked. He urged caution against disregarding another local authority’s views on a matter such as this.

 

While noting Mr Finch’s point about local democracy, Mrs Taylor pointed out that the majority of the consultation responses were in favour of the proposals in the draft appraisal document.

 

Miss Le Vay referred to CDC’s statutory duty to assess areas which needed the protection afforded by conservation area status. She said that there were five consultees in favour of the proposals; only STC objected to them.

 

At Mr Dignum’s invitation Mr A Brown, the vice-chairman of STC, who was present as an observer, addressed the meeting. He said that the majority of STC members had been unhappy with the way in which the appraisal had been undertaken: there had been an inadequate level of publicity and engagement with the public. The five positive consultee responses were less representative of local opinion than that canvassed by STC in its own research. Whilst the East Beach area of the town supported the appraisal document for the proposed new conservation area, the same was not the case with those who lived and worked in and around the High Street; the Medmerry Academy for example felt that conservation area status could hamper design. The High Street contained some vacant buildings eg the former National Westminster bank building. STC had tried to support the use of that building for commercial purposes but the planning application had been refused and its attempts to redevelop and improve this part of the town were being hampered by the conservation area designation. The High Street had a 1960s/1970s feel and the mix of development made it difficult to see how it warranted being protected in this way (as opposed to an assessment being undertaken in the usual way within the development management process when a planning application was considered on its own merits). There was anger in STC in that it felt it was not being heard by CDC; of the CDC ward members only Mr Connor indicated support for STC’s views. STC had been democratically elected unlike CDC officers and its views should carry weight but instead it felt that in this matter CDC was acting contrary to the democratic process.

 

In response Mr Frost said that whilst it was difficult to comment on some of the site specific matters, as a general proposition he was not convinced that conservation area status per se suppressed development. He referred to the map shown on the screen and remarked that most of the listed and positive contribution buildings were in the northern half of the High Street but nevertheless there was a smattering of both types in the southern half too. De-designation would deprive those buildings (particularly those in the positive contribution category) of protection and put the High Street and its quality in further jeopardy, which was a serious matter for the Cabinet to consider.

 

Mr Allgrove commented that de-designation would mean that the opportunity to improve negative buildings would be reduced.

 

Mr Barrow said that he found the issues being debated had created for him a dilemma in terms of the positive and potentially negative effects on development of conservation area status. He echoed Mr Finch’s point about local democracy, which warranted careful consideration. Although he did not support de-designation, he felt it was important for CDC and STC to work with each other to achieve a mutually acceptable outcome and accordingly he favoured a deferral of this item for that purpose. 

 

Miss Le Vay said that in conservation areas the local planning authority specifically encouraged development of some sites in order to enhance and preserve the character of the area.

 

At the end of the discussion Mr Dignum stated that it was clear that further dialogue was required between CDC officers and Selsey ward members and STC. Mr Frost would examine how conservation area status might have influenced the determination of relevant Selsey planning applications. Accordingly he proposed the deferral of this agenda item to enable that dialogue to take place before the Cabinet considered this matter further.

 

Decision

 

The Cabinet voted unanimously by a show of hands in favour of a deferral of this item.

 

RESOLVED

 

That this item be deferred in its entirety to enable officers to enter into further dialogue with Selsey Town Council and Chichester District Council ward members for Selsey with regard to whether or not Selsey High Street should retain its designation status as a Conservation Area and that a further report be submitted to the Cabinet in due course.  

Supporting documents:

 

Top of page