Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Object

Representation ID: 2942

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: CPRE Sussex

Agent: CPRE Sussex

This policy is pretty bland and it is difficult to see how it would be applied in a way which makes a real difference to health and well-being.

Support

Representation ID: 2943

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: CPRE Sussex

Agent: CPRE Sussex

We welcome Policy S24 in relation to development in the countryside and agree with para 5.37 that "The plan area's countryside is an important and diminishing resource."
Should para 5.41 not also refer to the AONB?
We note the comments in paragraph 5.42 concerning establishing and protecting green gaps between communities that retain a clear identity for those communities. We strongly support this approach in an area where these identities have already been severely eroded.

Comment

Representation ID: 2944

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: CPRE Sussex

Agent: CPRE Sussex

Concerned about the references in most allocation policies to mitigation measures. Our experience is that mitigation measures are often ill thought through and of limited, short-term benefit. Becomes a means of developers buying out their responsibilities towards your plan. We would want to see realistic mitigation measures which can be seen to have a very long-term effect, and used only as a last resort. Avoidance of the damage referred to in your policy documents is the top priority. We will be monitoring closely any planned mitigation in new developments.

Should this policy not include the setting of the AoNB?

Object

Representation ID: 2945

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: CPRE Sussex

Agent: CPRE Sussex

Generally, welcome the inclusion of strategic wildlife corridors within the plan in what is an important area for wildlife biodiversity, including both native and migrating species. We believe there may be other important wildlife corridors that need to be considered, particularly east west across the Manhood Peninsular. We would request further research into this aspect, or at least an acknowledgement that further corridors may need to be incorporated in due course. We support the views expressed by the Chichester Harbour Conservancy that the suggested corridors need to be extended further south and strengthened and with an east-west corridor.

Comment

Representation ID: 2946

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: CPRE Sussex

Agent: CPRE Sussex

We welcome this Policy but would like it to better reflect the NPPF (2018) requirement that "Design policies should be developed with local communities so they reflect local aspirations, and are grounded in an understanding and evaluation of each area's defining characteristics" (para 125) and "Applicants should work closely with those affected by their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the community. Applications that can demonstrate early, proactive and effective engagement with the community should be looked on more favourably than those that cannot" (para 128)

Object

Representation ID: 2949

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: CPRE Sussex

Agent: CPRE Sussex

P38/para 4.30:
We are very concerned by the indication here of a future plan to create a major new settlement in the area. The District has 75% of its area as designated land and any such development could not be achieved without creating an unsustainable level of damage to the natural environment, as well as creating an unsustainable car-dependent development.