Westhampnett/North East Chichester
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 401
Received: 01/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Mike Harper
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
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
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.
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
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).
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3179
Received: 04/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Sarah Sharp
6.34 Change to: "The development must provide improved access and transport links".
See attachment
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3340
Received: 05/02/2019
Respondent: CEG
Agent: CEG and the Landowners (D C Heaver and Eurequity IC Limited)
Para 6.33 - the proposal to remove areas no longer required for development is inconsistent with AL4.
See attachment