West of Chichester
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 116
Received: 12/01/2019
Respondent: Mrs Marilyn Hicks
4.112 Add "while maintaining separation of the Service Villages."
4.118 When will the existing military use of Thorney Island next be reviewed?
4.112 Add "while maintaining separation of the Service Villages."
4.118 When will the existing military use of Thorney Island next be reviewed?
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 410
Received: 27/01/2019
Respondent: david marsh
The report seems to imply that the northern part of the city is excluded from consideration as it is near to the SDNP and because it is expensive - surely building on this land with its lack of flood plain considerations is more economically and environmentally more viable than building on the floodplains on the Fishbourne to Emsworth road south of the A27?
The report seems to imply that the northern part of the city is excluded from consideration as it is near to the SDNP and because it is expensive - surely building on this land with its lack of flood plain considerations is more economically and environmentally more viable than building on the floodplains on the Fishbourne to Emsworth road south of the A27?
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 829
Received: 02/02/2019
Respondent: Fishbourne Parish Council
Para 4.113 There is a tendency to underplay the cumulative impact of all the individual proposals in the document. Taken alone, each proposal seems comparatively reasonable but add together the proposals in policies SA7, SA9, SA10 and SA 13 and you get a very different CUMULATIVE EFFECT of the proposals on the infrastructure. Fishbourne (250), Bosham (250 at Highgrove + 50 allocated in the existing Site Allocation DPD (2018), Chidham and Hambrook (500) and Southbourne (1,250) = 2,300 homes. Fishbourne and its Roundabout will be affected not by traffic from 250 homes but by that from 2,300 homes.
Para 4.113 There is a tendency to underplay the cumulative impact of all the individual proposals in the document. Taken alone, each proposal seems comparatively reasonable but add together the proposals in policies SA7, SA9, SA10 and SA 13 and you get a very different CUMULATIVE EFFECT of the proposals on the infrastructure. Fishbourne (250), Bosham (250 at Highgrove + 50 allocated in the existing Site Allocation DPD (2018), Chidham and Hambrook (500) and Southbourne (1,250) = 2,300 homes. Fishbourne and its Roundabout will be affected not by traffic from 250 homes but by that from 2,300 homes.
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 1591
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Robert Probee
Para. 4.115. Totally disagree with this statement. The reasons given for no development in this area could be applied to anywhere. The area should be considered for some development.
Para. 4.115. Totally disagree with this statement. The reasons given for no development in this area could be applied to anywhere. The area should be considered for some development.
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2840
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: Gleeson Strategic Land
Agree with approach of directing significant proportion of growth towards E-W corridor.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 2877
Received: 07/02/2019
Respondent: MR William Sharp
Allocations are disastrous to character of largely rural settlements. Effect could be mitigated by insisting on measures including low-car housing, home working and ensuring small-scale shopping and schooling facilities on site. Plan is weak in all areas.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3482
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: Mr Colin Hammerton
None of these service villages can be considered for a significant proportion of housing development because of the poor accessibility (not a high level of accessibility) unless a new junction to the A27 near Southbourne.
See attachment