Appendix A - Plan Area Sub-Area Maps
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 306
Received: 21/01/2019
Respondent: Mr Robert Styles-Forsyth
Why is the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) not included on the map?
Why is the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) not included on the map?
Why is the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) not included on the map?
Why is the Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) not included on the map?
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 568
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Zoe Neal
I object to the fact that the Chichester Harbour AONB, RAMSAR, SPA and SSSI site is omitted from the Map describing the East-West Corridor, yet the SDNP takes precedence. In planning policy terms AONBs are equal to National Parks. Chichester Harbour AONB was designated in 1964 under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
I object to the fact that the Chichester Harbour AONB, RAMSAR, SPA and SSSI site is omitted from the Map describing the East-West Corridor, yet the SDNP takes precedence. In planning policy terms AONBs are equal to National Parks. Chichester Harbour AONB was designated in 1964 under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 573
Received: 05/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Pieter Montyn
The Chichester Harbour AONB is neither referenced nor indicated in these maps while it is within the local plan area. Why are there recurring references to the SDNP throughout this document when it is not inside the plan area..
The Chichester Harbour AONB is neither referenced nor indicated in these maps while it is within the local plan area. Why are there recurring references to the SDNP throughout this document when it is not inside the plan area..
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2913
Received: 05/02/2019
Respondent: Councillor Christopher Page
Appendix A Map A1: Is a perfect representation of how the development of our district has suffered from the requirements of the SDNP and as previously observed, shows that inevitably, there will be continuous development eventually from Southbourne to Tangmere
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2990
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Plaistow And Ifold Parish Council
Plaistow AND IFOLD Parish Council draw CDC attention yet again to the wrong name being used for this Parish. Map A3 and Map B1 both only refer to Plaistow , please can you amend and amend your records as this is a constant mistake. Also Map 4.1 Key Diagram only shows the settlement of Ifold and not Plaistow even though they are designated one service village.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3349
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr and Mrs R Ellis
Number of people: 2
Agent: Genesis Town Planning Ltd
SB3 - consider areas identified as part of the adopted Site Allocations DPD are misleading, should simply be accorded settlement boundary status as they are already developed. Plan should be changed to include site at Lagness Road which forms a logical settlement boundary extension and is contiguous with existing development.
See attachment