Westhampnett/North East Chichester

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 401

Received: 01/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Mike Harper

Representation Summary:

The advantages of choosing the site identified in AL4 as compared to AL6 are as follows:

- Proximity to other businesses in the area, notably Rolls Royce.
- Additional employment opportunities for the rural communities within SDNP who would not have to cross the busy A27 and Chichester to access such opportunities.
- Compared with AL6 no flood plain issues
- Good access to the A27
- This site has already identified in 5 possible access points
- No issues regarding views of the cathedral or the South Downs unlike development at AL6
- Buffered from SDNP by an aerodrome

Full text:

Resident.
This site has not been considered for employment use. It has clear advantages for such use and should be the preferred site for this use rather than that outlined SW of Chichester in section AL6. The advantages of choosing the site identified in AL4 as compared to AL6 are as follows:

- Proximity to other businesses in the area, notably Rolls Royce. There is a high degree of synergism to be found by locating similar high tech businesses in the same geographical area.
- Additional employment opportunities for the rural communities within SDNP who would not have to cross the busy A27 and Chichester to access such opportunities.
- Compared with AL6 no flood plain issues
- Good access to the A27
- This site has already identified in 5 possible access points
- No issues regarding views of the cathedral or the South Downs unlike development at AL6
- Buffered from SDNP by an aerodrome

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 811

Received: 02/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Fiona Horn

Representation Summary:

Not an overall flood risk compared to sites in the south. Still no proper mention of transport infrastructure. No mention of increased school places. One primary school in the area that is already over subscribed.

Full text:

Not an overall flood risk compared to sites in the south. Still no proper mention of transport infrastructure. No mention of increased school places. One primary school in the area that is already over subscribed.

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2956

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: MR William Sharp

Representation Summary:

6.35 - Bullet point 4 (River Lavant floodplain - opportunity to plan for green infrastructure) SUPPORT Though it may be advisable to add that infrastructure detailing should be rural in nature (e.g. soft detailing such as hedges, not metal rails or bland fencing).

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3179

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Sharp

Representation Summary:

6.34 Change to: "The development must provide improved access and transport links".

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3340

Received: 05/02/2019

Respondent: CEG

Agent: Nexus Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

Para 6.33 - the proposal to remove areas no longer required for development is inconsistent with AL4.

Full text:

See attachment