Object

Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Representation ID: 4710

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Limited

Agent: David Lock Associates

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Table 2.2 of the Chichester Transport Study outlines the development quanta for each site allocation assumed for the transport modelling work. This shows that only 7ha of the total 10ha R-RMC expansion site is included. This is not entirely consistent with the approach for other sites. Paragraph 1.4.2 states that the quanta of development is based on the Council’s best estimate at the time. Similarly, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) applies 7ha to the R-RMC expansion site.

It would be helpful to either update the two documents for consistency or provide additional supporting commentary to explain the discrepancy in approach.

Change suggested by respondent:

Suggests either update the two documents for consistency or provide additional supporting commentary to explain the discrepancy in approach.

Full text:

The supporting Chichester Transport Study: Local Plan Review Transport Assessment (Stantec, January 2023) provides a strategic view of the cumulative impacts of development proposed through the draft Local Plan. Table 2.2 outlines the development quanta for each site allocation assumed for the transport modelling work. This shows that only 7ha of the total 10ha R-RMC Goodwood expansion site is included in the model. This is not entirely consistent with the approach for other sites.

Paragraph 1.4.2 states that the quanta of development and other assumptions are based on the Council’s best estimate at the time the stage commenced, and that capacity for development may change as a result of the evolving evidence base. Similarly, the supporting Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) applies 7ha to the R-RMC Goodwood expansion site.

It would be helpful to either update the two documents for consistency or provide additional supporting commentary to explain the discrepancy in approach.