Spatial Strategy

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Support

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2795

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Limited

Agent: LRM Planning Ltd

Representation:

Spatial strategy accords with paras 20 and 21 of NPPF.

Full text:

See attachment

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2860

Received: 07/02/2019

Respondent: Sussex Wildlife Trust

Representation:

Section 4.4 - expected to see a reference to ecological networks and green infrastructure influencing decisions. Little evidence relating to the need to 'identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks'. Expect CDC to incorporate more thorough evidence base. Very little information on state of District's environment. Concern about potential location of new settlement of up to 3,000 dwellings as no information provided to demonstrate this is a feasible option. No confidence the evidence base will be used to inform potential locations for a new settlement. Section 4.33 does'n include natural capital impacts and investment

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Comment

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 2984

Received: 04/02/2019

Respondent: Mrs Sarah Sharp

Representation:

Section 4.3 Insert the word "natural environment" in the first sentence "...and meet the needs of places, communities and the natural environment across the plan area..."

Full text:

See attachment

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Representation ID: 3478

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Mr Colin Hammerton

Representation:

Para 4.84 Funding element is unclear. Consider spends on local roads such as A286 and roads on Manhood Peninsula

Full text:

See attachment