Development Strategy
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 295
Received: 25/01/2019
Respondent: Mr Carey Mackinnon
S3 Development Strategy
4.13. How can "sustainable locations" include the Western Manhood Peninsula which is at the end of a single already congested road with a groaning infrastructure? So I support your aspirations but the policy S3 does not reflect these aspirations.
S3 Development Strategy
4.13. How can "sustainable locations" include the Western Manhood Peninsula which is at the end of a single already congested road with a groaning infrastructure? So I support your aspirations but the policy S3 does not reflect these aspirations.
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 498
Received: 31/01/2019
Respondent: Mrs Glenda Baum
4.17 : It is recognized by National Government that High Streets are no longer primarily retail. Selsey needs to improve visitor footfall . It needs tourist orientated facilities, restaurants, retail outlets that will meet visitors need,
4.17 : It is recognized by National Government that High Streets are no longer primarily retail. Selsey needs to improve visitor footfall . It needs tourist orientated facilities, restaurants, retail outlets that will meet visitors need,
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 583
Received: 30/01/2019
Respondent: Julia Smith
Vital that planning for these settlement hubs has proper safe transport infrastructure in place. That ordinary people will actually use in preference to using their cars.
Vital that planning for these settlement hubs has proper safe transport infrastructure in place. That ordinary people will actually use in preference to using their cars.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 653
Received: 31/01/2019
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Horn
Needs to address lack of doctors/ dentist/ school places in Chichester. Yes Chichester can be a regional hub but it has to have increased funding. primary schools are almost full necessitating parents having to travel to get their children into a school. Local schools are already full with local children . New housing estates with no onsite schools/ doctors etc.The plan does not say how it is going to protect the countryside. NO MITIGATION. Unless this is adequately addressed in the iterations of the plan, I will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.
Needs to address lack of doctors/ dentist/ school places in Chichester. Yes Chichester can be a regional hub but it has to have increased funding. primary schools are almost full necessitating parents having to travel to get their children into a school. Local schools are already full with local children . New housing estates with no onsite schools/ doctors etc.The plan does not say how it is going to protect the countryside. NO MITIGATION. Unless this is adequately addressed in the iterations of the plan, I will raise this with the examiner at the appropriate time.
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1244
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: North Mundham Parish Council
It is not clear how the required expansion of Service Villages (4.18) is reconciled with protecting the countryside (4.20)
It is not clear how the required expansion of Service Villages (4.18) is reconciled with protecting the countryside (4.20)
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1502
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Wisborough Green Parish Council
Wisborough Green Parish Council is concerned that the plan seems to turn the focus of development in Service Villages to be driven by opportunities. Villages do need to adapt and grow but to be successful this has to be sustainable - both in context of infrastructure as well as small scale in context to the community size. There seems to be no demonstration of why an opportunistic approach will better serve the service village communities than the more even distribution approach in the current plan.
Wisborough Green Parish Council is concerned that the plan seems to turn the focus of development in Service Villages to be driven by opportunities. Villages do need to adapt and grow but to be successful this has to be sustainable - both in context of infrastructure as well as small scale in context to the community size. There seems to be no demonstration of why an opportunistic approach will better serve the service village communities than the more even distribution approach in the current plan.
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1604
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Harbour Villages Lib Dems Campaign Team
4.18
Service villages are not sufficiently defined. Comparing Fishbourne with Westbourne or Westhamnett with Wisborough Green fails to distinguish them. They are different.
4.18
Service villages are not sufficiently defined. Comparing Fishbourne with Westbourne or Westhamnett with Wisborough Green fails to distinguish them. They are different.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1797
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Heaver Homes Ltd
Agent: King & Co c/o ATP
It is noted that this policy makes reference to the existing settlement hierarchy. We also note that the proposed strategic allocations (such as AL14 and AL7) are identified to reinforce the roles of existing centres in their current position in the settlement hierarchy.
We would note that Plan paragraphs 4.30-4.33 (Longer Term Growth Requirements) may result in growth which would require reconsideration of the hierarchy. We would agree that this may not necessarily be a matter for this Local Plan period but the text should accommodate it if there was a preference to accelerate delivery within this Plan period.
It is noted that this policy makes reference to the existing settlement hierarchy. We also note that the proposed strategic allocations (such as AL14 and AL7) are identified to reinforce the roles of existing centres in their current position in the settlement hierarchy.
We would note that Plan paragraphs 4.30-4.33 (Longer Term Growth Requirements) may result in growth which would require reconsideration of the hierarchy. We would agree that this may not necessarily be a matter for this Local Plan period but the text should accommodate it if there was a preference to accelerate delivery within this Plan period.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1798
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Andrew Rosier
I object to the proposed development in Stockbridge for the building of a housing estate which will cause significant issues to local people such as traffic / congestion and environmental issues.
I object to the proposed development in Stockbridge for the building of a housing estate which will cause significant issues to local people such as traffic / congestion and environmental issues.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2845
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: MR William Sharp
Object on grounds that Chichester does not need any new supermarkets; distance travelled may be reduced by concentrating development in one place, but the need to travel will not; clarify what sort of development will help reduce need to travel.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2987
Received: 04/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Sarah Sharp
4.21 There is still a need to travel to facilities even for people moving to developments close to Chichester City
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3377
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Jeff Ferguson
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting site at Bramber Nursery West Wittering for housing.
This is a previously developed site and could come forward as a windfall opportunity or as an allocated site in emerging West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3382
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Tearall
Number of people: 2
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting site south of Yeoman's Field for housing.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3388
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Ms Rebecca Newman
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
"Promoting site at Farmfield Hunston for housing.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3413
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Greenwood Group Ltd
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting site at Greenwood Nursery Highleigh Road Sidlesham for housing.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3427
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting site at 98 Fishbourne Road for housing.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3428
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting site at the former Burnes Shipyard, Bosham for housing.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3429
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting site at Cox's Barn Farm, Chidham and Hambrook for housing.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3431
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Junnell Homes Ltd
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting site Land east of The Spinney, Runcton for housing.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3432
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Domusea
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting sites at:
Pigeon House Farm, North Mundham
Wayside, Main Road, Nutbourne
Inlands Road, Southbourne
Land south of Gordon Road, Southbourne
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3433
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Chichester Grain Ltd
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting site at Chichester Grain, Priors Leaze Road for housing.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3434
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Landacre Developments Ltd
Agent: Genesis Town Planning
Promoting Land south of Clay Lane for housing.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3494
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Sue and Geoff Talbot
Number of people: 2
Object on grounds that: lack of comprehensive guidance for east-west corridor and term implies ribbon development; strategy focusses majority of growth at Chichester and within east-west corridor.
See attachment
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3503
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr and Mrs Sue and Geoff Talbot
Number of people: 2
Appreciate the difficulty in balancing the requirements for new housing placed on the District Council against the need to protect sensitive and attractive areas.
See attachment