Welcome to the large text version of Birdham Parish Council website. If you are here by mistake please follow this link to return to the standard layout.
Welcome to the dyslexia friendly version of Birdham Parish Council website. If you are here by mistake please follow this link to return to the standard layout.
Welcome to the Non Styling version of Birdham Parish Council website. If you are here by mistake please follow this link to return to the standard layout.

Planning Matters 13th December 2017

APPLICATIONS BI/17/03484/ELD - Case Officer: -  Ms Vanessa Branson Lippering Farm  Birdham Road Birdham Existing lawful development certificate for the use of existing shed as estate storage. https://publicaccess.chichester.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=P0AEFFERFVJ00 DELEGATED DECISIONS BI/17/02604/PLD Mr &... read more »

Birdham Parish Council > Planning > Planning Matters July 2009

Planning Matters July 2009

Planning Matters for the Meeting of 20th July 2009

Plans to be considered:

BI/09/02537/DOM – Penmayne Cottage, Martins Lane, Birdham – Proposed single storey side extension

BI/09/02564/DOM – Pipkins, Crooked Lane, Birdham – single storey side extension for garden room.

Plans considered by the Council since the last meeting to be ratified:

BI/09/01808/FUL – The Dinghy Park, Birdham

This dinghy park has existed for a number of years and the Council is sympathetic to the need for facilities for sailing in this area. We do however have several problems with this application.

The site is bounded on two sides by the Salterns Way path for walkers, cyclists and the disabled. Under normal circumstances this would mean that the movement of boats between the park and the water has to be carefully managed to avoid conflict. But, as the applicant notes, changes at Birdham Pool mean that boats will now have to be taken to Chichester Yacht Basin, or further afield, for launching which will increase the amount and scale of movement. Manoeuvring a boat by hand or with minimum transport over a hundred yards is different from towing it with a large vehicle (implied by the need to widen the access or provide an alternative) for several miles. The conflict could therefore be hazardous to those using the Salterns Way, many of whom are cyclists with young children.

By the same token, access to this site from both directions is over private roads which are maintained at the expense of the riparian owners. Increased traffic would have to be negotiated with the owners of the road. We have no evidence of their agreement to this increase in size and volume of traffic. One of the roads is part of the Salterns Way.

We note that the Planning Officer has already raised the question of noise. At the moment the site has no services and is simply a parking place for dinghies. There are several houses adjacent to this site which is extremely quiet and within the AONB. If services are provided in the building shown we are sceptical that they will only be used inside the building and would be reluctant to see the peace and tranquillity of the area disturbed, especially at weekends, by the noise of boat maintenance and repair. The agents reject the need for a noise assessment and its accuracy. It seems to us to be simple enough to try a variety of machinery (sanders, angle grinders etc) on the site in the open air and to assess the impact on the adjacent houses.

The applicant states as one reason for the building on the site two recent thefts and his expectation that the economic climate may increase them. The security of the site is not a planning matter and seems to us to have no relevance to this application.

Our final concern is about future development. The site is at present a grassy triangle with dinghies parked on it: essentially a green field. The provision of a building on this site could lead to a change of designation. If the dinghy park and repair facilities were to fail this could open the way to further redesignation. Even though plans would have to be approved by the Planning Authority, the process of redesignation (e.g. for industrial or residential use) could be made easier by previous redesignation as a result of this development.

For these reasons we feel we must OBJECT to this application.

BI/09/02237/TPA – 25, Walwyn Close, Birdham – Crown reduction of 20% to oak (T8) and also to oak (T7) remove branch over house/conservatory by 2 metres. Branches are damaging garage/house/conservatory and cars by garage – NO OBJECTION