Addressing the Need for Retailing
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 668
Received: 31/01/2019
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Horn
Chichester city centre is dying. Too many eateries and no shops . Need to encourage small retailers back. do like Bognor..2 hrs free parking If nothing to buy people will not just come for coffee as parking is too expensive and there is no real move to "sustainable modes of transport " as mentioned. No detail. What sustainability ? what modes ? Just words ..no substance. Remove the Southern Gateway scheme until A27 is sorted...would be destructive to Canal area.
Chichester city centre is dying. Too many eateries and no shops . Need to encourage small retailers back. do like Bognor..2 hrs free parking If nothing to buy people will not just come for coffee as parking is too expensive and there is no real move to "sustainable modes of transport " as mentioned. No detail. What sustainability ? what modes ? Just words ..no substance. Remove the Southern Gateway scheme until A27 is sorted...would be destructive to Canal area.
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1276
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: HMPC Ltd
Retail should extend further than traditional High Street interpretation
At paragraph 4.66 the plan is correct to recognise the retail offer within the District. However, the plan continues the traditional approach to protecting and revitalising existing retail centres. It fails to acknowledge the significant changes in retailing in recent years and the changing nature and character of the traditional "High Street" and shopping areas. While the policies are not in anyway, inappropriate, and there is acknowledgement of the rise in cafes and restaurants in some localities, the Estate believes the plan should go further to embrace retail changes that go beyond the traditional shopping parade. The Estate itself has a range of 'retail activities' within its portfolio of business interests and is considering others in a changing market place and in response to its patrons' expectations. The Estate is looking to the local plan to provide an appropriate retail environment that allows new enterprises to become established in areas not traditionally associated with retail activities.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1416
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Ms Paula Chatfield
These paragraphs do not mention local retail parades (such as The Ridgeway in Parklands) which are important for social interaction and sense of place/community and community support.
Nor are the Trade Parks mentioned, e.g. near the Bognor roundabout, which include important diversity such as Falcon Fabrics, Dyson King, Tri-It and Game Set and Match, as well as chains such as Screwfix.
N.B. As a Committee member of Parklands' Residents' Association (PRA), please note that PRA may wish to pursue the subject of local parades with CDC and with the Inspector at Examination in Public, if it is not adequately addressed.
These paragraphs do not mention local retail parades (such as The Ridgeway in Parklands) which are important for social interaction and sense of place/community and community support.
Nor are the Trade Parks mentioned, e.g. near the Bognor roundabout, which include important diversity such as Falcon Fabrics, Dyson King, Tri-It and Game Set and Match, as well as chains such as Screwfix.
N.B. As a Committee member of Parklands' Residents' Association (PRA), please note that PRA may wish to pursue the subject of local parades with CDC and with the Inspector at Examination in Public, if it is not adequately addressed.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1441
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Ms Paula Chatfield
It is not clear to me whether this section refers to all Class A uses (i.e. https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/9/change_of_use ).
It would benefit from clarification.
It is not clear to me whether this section refers to all Class A uses (i.e. https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/9/change_of_use ).
It would benefit from clarification.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1640
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Dominic Stratton
Section 4.65 makes no mention of Lavant as a village centre and as there is space for residential development outside of the SDNP this needs to feature in the local plan as a village centre to support the new settlement boundary that should be in the local plan as a strategic site outside of the SDNP.
Section 4.65 makes no mention of Lavant as a village centre and as there is space for residential development outside of the SDNP this needs to feature in the local plan as a village centre to support the new settlement boundary that should be in the local plan as a strategic site outside of the SDNP.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1720
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Harbour Villages Lib Dems Campaign Team
4.6
We do need to retain and expand our retail offering This needs to be flexible as peoples requirements change. Young people now wish to live, work and play in Cities. Chichester currently does not offer this as a serious opportunity. This plan does little to address this.
4.62
We do not support the development of retail warehouse parks. This does damage to our city centre. We need to encourage the iconic stores into the City.
4.63
We support the enhancement of the local centres in Selsey, Wittering and Tangmere
4.6
We do need to retain and expand our retail offering This needs to be flexible as peoples requirements change. Young people now wish to live, work and play in Cities. Chichester currently does not offer this as a serious opportunity. This plan does little to address this.
4.62
We do not support the development of retail warehouse parks. This does damage to our city centre. We need to encourage the iconic stores into the City.
4.63
We support the enhancement of the local centres in Selsey, Wittering and Tangmere
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2589
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Countryside Properties
Agent: Turley
Support para 4.63, however table following para 4.65 misleading as defines Tangmere as 'village centre'
See attachment
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2967
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: MR William Sharp
Section 4.60 SUPPORT Final bullet point (referring to "Improving access ... by sustainable modes of transport ...")
4.66 Strongly support the statement "it is important to promote the city centre and restrict further developments in out of centre locations".
See attachment
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2994
Received: 04/02/2019
Respondent: Mrs Sarah Sharp
Support "restrict further developments in out of centre locations"
See attachment