Apuldram and Donnington Parishes
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 376
Received: 05/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Pieter Montyn
Paras 6.44 to 6.49 deficient in several respects.:Contrast with AL4 where extensive mention is made of flood risk and Lavant flood plain, 'comprehensive approach to flood risk management, ...including surface water management' etc. This barely rates in AL6.
6.45 omits Ramsar site
No mention of Flood zones 2 and 3
No mention of 100 year sea level rise: review due from EA.
.6.48 mentions 33 ha of employment land: three times requirement of 11 ha which can be spread over other sites with better connections (see comments under 'Meeting Business and Employment Needs, Paras 4.56 and 4.57, and under AL6
Paras 6.44 to 6.49 deficient in several respects.:Contrast with AL4 where extensive mention is made of flood risk and Lavant flood plain, 'comprehensive approach to flood risk management, ...including surface water management' etc. This barely rates in AL6.
6.45 omits Ramsar site
No mention of Flood zones 2 and 3
No mention of 100 year sea level rise: review due from EA.
.6.48 mentions 33 ha of employment land: three times requirement of 11 ha which can be spread over other sites with better connections (see comments under 'Meeting Business and Employment Needs, Paras 4.56 and 4.57, and under AL6
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 821
Received: 02/02/2019
Respondent: Fishbourne Parish Council
The proposed link road is very similar to the one soundly rejected in one of the Highways England options. Its location would provide an extra flow of traffic before traffic from Fishbourne could enter the Roundabout, That causes long delays now - and that's without the 4,500 extra cars that would be crammed
into the A259 from all the building along the Corridor.
6.49 Para 6.49 contains a hidden time bomb for Fishbourne (which may explain why there is no mention of it in Policy SA9: Fishbourne Parish). The proposal for a new road connecting Birdham Road to Fishbourne Roundabout looks remarkably similar to the proposal soundly rejected when it formed part of one of the options put forward by Highways England. The proximity of an extra junction to the right of the access to the Roundabout from Fishbourne would make access from the village bother slower and more hazardous. A light-controlled system might increase the safety of using the roundabout but would do nothing to reduce the queuing at the Roundabout - with the extra air pollution that would result from this. Moreover, if you take into the account the CUMULATIVE EFFECT of all the Corrridor developments and the poor sightlines there would actually be an increased risk in using Fishbourne Roundabout - contrary to Policy DM8 that "Development must not create residual severe cumulative impacts on surrounding areas".
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1043
Received: 04/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Clare Gordon-Pullar
Even though much of this area is an AONB, SPA, SAC and a SSSI the importance of protecting this area is given less emphasis that in paragraph 6.35 above where a number of specific issues are listed. Why are these given more importance for Westhampnett/North Chichester?
The views of the Cathedral are better from the south and the importance of the Canal is not stressed.
Even though much of this area is an AONB, SPA, SAC and a SSSI the importance of protecting this area is given less emphasis that in paragraph 6.35 above where a number of specific issues are listed. Why are these given more importance for Westhampnett/North Chichester?
The views of the Cathedral are better from the south and the importance of the Canal is not stressed.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1729
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Dominic Stratton
6.47 states that "the impacts of development (including landscape, flooding and transport) in this location, along with the commercial attractiveness of the site, will need to be tested further".
The evidence of the currently conducted tests have not been provided for comment in the local plan.
6.47 states that "the impacts of development (including landscape, flooding and transport) in this location, along with the commercial attractiveness of the site, will need to be tested further".
The evidence of the currently conducted tests have not been provided for comment in the local plan.