Website URL :

Planning objection - Selsey Tram development D11/01198/FUL


Donnington Parish Council Planning Committee The conclusion of the Planning Committee is to object to the proposed development on the following grounds:

• The loss of the public house is a major blow to the area. Whilst it has not been successful recently, that is not because there is no need. The committee recognises the need for investment in the pub as it has had none for many years and the need for good management. Summer trade has historically been better than winter trade.

• The need for a convenience store has not been made. There is already a 'top-up' facility within the immediate area which is open all year and caters for the needs of the community. There are already two Co-op stores within half a mile of the site.

• The design of the buildings is not in keeping with the surrounding area.

• The density of the proposal is too high when compared to the surrounding area where detached and semi-detached houses with gardens is the norm.

• Parking in Donnington has been a growing problem in recent years, especially as many people from further down the Manhood Peninsula habitually drive to Donnington to park their cars, then walk or cycle into Chichester. The proposed parking provision for this development of 30 spaces for 23 dwellings is deemed to be inadequate and overspill parking is inevitable, thus adding to the already crowded local streets, causing considerable inconvenience to existing residents.

• Traffic density has been a major issue in Donnington for many years. The creation of 23 new dwellings plus a convenience store will only make things worse.

• The proposed design of the convenience store together with two floors of flats above creates a three-storey building. There are no other three-storey buildings in Donnington. Height is, therefore, an issue. Furthermore, the plan shows this building to be well in advance of existing buildings in Stockbridge Road, a major through road, making it especially overbearing, particularly for residents opposite.

• The loss of open space is a cause for concern, particularly as there is no provision in the plans for a play space or other relaxation area.

• The proposed development is on an extremely busy junction. To have a large convenience store on that corner would be a serious safety hazard for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, whether they are trying to access the site or simply pass it by.

• The potential for additional noise (HGV deliveries and additional shopping traffic in the main) and lighting impacts on residential amenity generated by the Co-op especially through its very early and late (unsociable) opening hours, which include Sundays and Bank/Public Holidays.

The committee also expressed concerns that the developer may demolish the pub and then leave it as the Petrol Station site (opposite) is. It would be good to have some assurance that work on demolishing the pub will not start until planning permission is complete.