Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Search representations
Results for William Lacey Group search
New searchComment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy S3: Development Strategy
Representation ID: 3025
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Promoting site:
Land at Blackboy Lane and Clay Lane, Fishbourne
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy S4: Meeting Housing Needs
Representation ID: 3026
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Support approach to meet Chichester's identified needs plus need from SDNP.
Need to provide evidence of joint working with neighbouring authorities to establish whether unmet need elsewhere can be met.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy S5: Parish Housing Requirements 2016-2035
Representation ID: 3027
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Welcome commitment in wording to allocate sites through subsequent DPD if NP do not progress.
Unhelpful that strategic allocations are not shown in table - recommend requirement is written in table for every parish inc strategic sites.
See attachment
Support
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy AL9: Fishbourne Parish
Representation ID: 3028
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Support allocation of 250 dwellings however recommend amend policy wording to make NP review should consider meeting need through allocation of mix of small and large sites
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy S6: Affordable Housing
Representation ID: 3029
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
No viability evidence has been published at this stage - important that this is done.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy S24: Countryside
Representation ID: 3030
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Wording is highly restrictive and inconsistent with national policy
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy DM2: Housing Mix
Representation ID: 3031
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Wording of policy lacks flexibility - recommend rewording.
Nationally Described Space Standards - no justification for inclusion.
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy DM8: Transport, Accessibility and Parking
Representation ID: 3032
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Parking standards should be set out in the plan and supported by evidence
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy DM16: Sustainable Design and Construction
Representation ID: 3033
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Support aims of policy but no evidence provided to justify some of policy requirements
See attachment
Comment
Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035
Policy DM28: Natural Environment
Representation ID: 3034
Received: 06/02/2019
Respondent: William Lacey Group
Agent: Strutt and Parker LLP
Criterion 5 - unclear how an applicant can demonstrate compliance with 'actual and perceived' or how an officer can assess this with consistency
See attachment
