Appendix 1: Summary of Representations Received on the Arun Local Plan Main Modifications Consultation CHAPTER 5 The Key Diagram The key diagram shows a spatial representation of the Local Plan vision, providing a broad indication of how the District will develop over the lifetime of the Plan. DESCRIPTION OF MAIN CHANGES TO SECTION Recreation of the Key Diagram to reflect the updated strategy. MAIN MODIFICATIONS IN SECTION MM1 – The Key Diagram has been recreated from scratch. MM2 – Parish and Town Council Allocations removed. MM3 – Strategic Employment Areas replaced with Strategic Employment Boundaries. MM4 – Broad Locations for Strategic Growth replaced with new Strategic Site Boundaries. MM5 – Safeguarding the Main Road Network updated to reflect policies. MM6 – Gaps Between Settlements now exclude land designated as Strategic Sites. NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS (Who from; Support / oppose; Statutory Consultees) 30 representations were received on Chapter 5 The Key Diagram. The majority of comments on this section were from residents. Residents commented upon a number of issues including transport; consultation; objections to strategic allocations particularly Pagham and Bersted; map details; there is not enough employment being proposed in the west of the District; urban sprawl; Strategic Employment Sites boundaries; Strategic Housing Sites boundaries; coalescence and reduction of the gaps between Littlehampton, Climping, Ford and Yapton; the Plan ignores other development areas such as Ford in general and for a larger number. Climping Field Protection Group (CFPG) support the principles of the LEGA development but challenge the boundary change. Ferring Conservation Group considers the key diagram in relation to Hangleton Lane and the Worthing Angmering Gap incorrect Angmering Parish Council queries the legibility of the Key Diagram. Housebuilders – support modifications which reflect updated strategy position SUGGESTED CHANGES No suggested changes– The Key Diagram is indicative and is supported by and should be read in conjunction with the detailed Policy Maps. SUMMARY SHEET 1 MM Full Name Person Officer Summary Comment ID No. ID No. 1 Climping Field 1099747 CFPG is supportive of the principles of the LEGA development (EMP SP2) but strongly challenges ALPMods172 Protection the boundary change. Group (Mr David Miranda) 1 Mr C Self 614733 Comments on transport infrastructure e.g. traffic lights, road sign, height restrictions, speed limits ALPMods8 etc. 1 Mr Alan Lovell 871175 Concerns over the A.259 Consultation and other issues as it affects the area west of Littlehampton ALPMods9 1 Gleeson 1101497 For the reasons set out in detail in our representations to Policy H SP2c, the Key Diagram should ALPMods723 Developments be amended to identify as part of the strategic allocation at Yapton (SD7) land south of Burndell (Nexus Road, Yapton in addition to the land south west of Yapton. Planning - Adam Ross) 1 Mr Lawrence 1099765 I do not support the modification Strategic planning should mean taking account of local conditions ALPMods224 Tebbs and placing developments in the best positions not where a land owner has pushed an area of land in front of the planning authority. 1 mr richard 1099854 I do not support this. The key diagram is insufficiently clear to show the precise effect upon specific ALPMods361 rabbett homes, businesses, because there are scant minor roads shown. The imposition of near 4000 homes in the parishes of Pagham and Bersted in highly disproportionate, unsustainable, unjustified and poorly prepared. 1 Mr Michael 1097760 No reasonable person looking at the 2017 vs 2014 key diagram alongside the massively increased ALPMods209 Lovell scale of housing allocation to the west of the district. The key diagram gives a clear indication of how ADC has taken the easy option of land put forward by opportunistic landowners in the area of Bersted and Pagham.. Its an 'out of sight out of mind' approach and as such shows a lack of care and consideration for the people of Pagham and Bersted. 1 Ferring 650122 The Ferring area of the Key Diagram shows part of Hangleton Lane as 'Urban Area' but this is not ALPMods423 Conservation correct. The whole of the lane is rural. Policy Map 4 shows that is part of the Worthing-Angmering Group (Mr Ed Gap. Miller) 1 Mr David 1099333 The housing imposition on Pagham is unreasonable and unsustainable. We are loosing valuable ALPMods141 Huntley farmland, treed hedgerows, streams and wildlife corridors. As these are on land adjoining or near Pagham Harbour SPA and Ramsar site they are valuable supporting habitat for rare overwintering 2 MM Full Name Person Officer Summary Comment ID No. ID No. birds. 1 Mr Colin 1093041 The key diagram gives a clear indication of how ADC has simply jumped at the opportunity to take ALPMods42 Hamilton up offers of land by landowners with no regard to burden sharing across the district. The imposition of near 4000 homes in the parishes of Pagham and Bersted in highly disproportionate, unsustainable, unjustified and poorly prepared. 1 Angmering 670839 The key diagram is unreadable. ALPMods771 Parish Council (Mr Rob Martin) 1 Mr Ian Truin 670117 The 'main modification' is that there is a new map replacing a previous version. The details in any ALPMods684 map should be self-standing, defined by the key and linked to specific policies that defined the map content. 1 Mrs Gill Witt 1099372 This diagram shows clearly that the majority of new development is planned for the west of the ALPMods183 Arun region, with very little to the east. The largest area of economic growth appears to be around Littlehampton yet thousands of houses are planned for an area with little local employment, many jobs being seasonal and minimum/living wage rates of pay. 1 Mr Michael 1099738 This seems to be contrary to the general policy of maintaining and defining separate urban areas ALPMods211 Hampton and seeking to avoid an urban sprawl extending from one town to another. 3 Mr Robert Bean 1099763 From the map it appears that there are only 2 economic growth areas in West Sussex. I don't ALPMods192 believe that Bognor and Littlehampton's economic growth is worthy of being highlighted on the map. It is probably only came from the building of the new housing estates, which is just a spike in economic activity, not continual growth. 3 Mr Ian Truin 670117 Strategic Employment Areas have not been replaced with Strategic Employment Boundaries. They ALPMods685 are marked as Strategic Employment Sites. 4 Mr Ian Truin 670117 Broad Locations for Strategic Growth have not been replaced with new Strategic Site Boundaries. ALPMods686 They are marked as Strategic Housing Sites. 3 MM Full Name Person Officer Summary Comment ID No. ID No. 4 Mr and Mrs 1102217 Concerns over coalessence between Littlehampton, Climping, Ford and Yapton. ALPMods882 Alan and Margaret Brackley 4 Climping Parish 1094554 CPC notes that the proposed LEGA boundary on the key diagram extends deep in the gap ALPMods516 Council (Mrs between Littlehampton and Clymping. Val Knight) 4 Climping Field 1099747 MM4 CFPG notes that the proposed LEGA boundary on the key diagram extends deep in the gap ALPMods178 Protection between Littlehampton and Clymping. Group (Mr David Miranda) 4 Taylor Wimpey 616832 Support - We support this modification, reflecting the updated strategy position based on the future ALPMods568 development growth identified within the Arun District Local Plan. 4 Mrs Lisa 1100874 The inclusion of the Yapton site on the key diagram is welcome, however, it does not represent the ALPMods588 Jackson shape of the site in the way other sites are shown elsewhere in the District. The joint site promoters request that the shape on the diagram is more accurate to the allocation site to avoid any future confusion. 5 Mr Ian Truin 670117 Safeguarding the Main Road Network said to be updated to reflect policies, but 1. no new policy ALPMods688 reference and 2. revised strategy quoted as reason for change. If it is in policies it is policy driven, not strategy driven. 6 Mr Ian Truin 670117 Comment about the reduction of the strategic gap. ALPMods696 6 mrs siobhan 1098831 I do not agree with this modification as it does not give due considerations to other possible ALPMods45 binyon development areas ie Ford. It appears to ignore ADC previous policy of the 'strategic gap' between Bognor and Chichester. 6 Mr Thomas 1099779 If gaps between settlements are important then they should not be removed without reviewing ALPMods242 Jones other suitable sites that are not so identified. For example Ford Eco town is now in the plan with 1500 houses however it is capable of absorbing much more and has many positive reasons for being the preferred site and has previously been identified as able to take 5000 houses. 6 Mr David 1099333 MM 6 We should not be using green field sites for building when there are still brownfield sites ALPMods601 Huntley available like Ford Aerodrome which could support 5000 houses having good transport links. The A 27, A 269 and the railway. 4 MM Full Name Person Officer Summary Comment ID No. ID No. 6 R Burfoot 1100637 MM6 - proposes amended gaps between settlements by excluding the above strategic sites from ALPMods555 the 'strategic gap'. I do not consider this is justified or positively prepared. Better alternatives (eg Ford Eco town) have not been fully considered, and that irreparable damage to the infrastructure and way of life will occur in Pagham/Bersted. 6 Ms Lynette Gill 614471 Strategic gaps between settlements should be kept. It is possible to do this in Arun as the Ford ALPMods472 development which had been better received would not fill the strategic gaps from arundel littlehampton and Bognor. To build in Aldwick/Bersted would seriously damage the strategic gap and be detrimental to wildlife which would no longer have a green corridor 6 Mr Paul 1099768 The exclusion of land designated as Strategic Sites from the Gaps between Settlements is not ALPMods212 Edwards justified and not positively prepared.