Introduction

Showing comments 1 to 16 of 16

Support

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20892

Received: 28/02/2012

Representation:

Pleased to see that the importance of local retail, business and community facilities are appreciated in the plan. These things contribute enormously to the health of the village as a living community. Thank you to EHDC staff for listening to local opinions and producing a well conceived plan.

Support

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20918

Received: 09/03/2012

Representation:

Support document.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20920

Received: 09/03/2012

Representation:

Feel that document is biased against southern parishes that make up 20% of population. No solutions just a myriad of questions that appear to be unanswered.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20925

Received: 09/03/2012

Representation:

Para 1.19: Needs to be specific reference to role of neighbourhood plans, particularly to their role in supplementing Local Plan policies and in implementing their provisions.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 20928

Received: 09/03/2012

Representation:

Wish to see more emphasis on where the Council seeks to bring together economic development strategy with housing and employment sites and infrastructure (which should include broadband). Also, where appropriate, the Council should make clear statements on their cross-authority working and acknowledgement of stakeholder partnerships where these partnerships will be required to lead and deliver.

Support

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21008

Received: 15/03/2012

Representation:

Support document.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21027

Received: 14/03/2012

Representation:

This is not a strategy paper as these are usually short (document is 120 pages), high level. This is an implementation plan. Amount of detail on Eco-town and lack of equivalent coverage of towns and villages. Policy should treat all areas similarly to be sustainable.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21094

Received: 15/03/2012

Representation:


Clear and well laid out document but lack of coherence and alignment between the JCS and the SDNP themes.
Anomalous boundary of the SDNP.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21111

Received: 14/03/2012

Representation:

The ability to comment objectively on the document is difficult given the narrow scope defined in the review criteria.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21112

Received: 14/03/2012

Representation:

Each of the policies are very narrow in definition and generally stated as a problem/solution text. No detail is provided about what happens when two or more of these individual policies conflict. EG. Guidance when town specific policies meet village specific policies; and there is no detail on how different boundaries phase into each other, the National Park to the non-National Park.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21228

Received: 16/03/2012

Representation:

Para 1.2 refers to Whitehill Bordon, but if you consult the Ordnance Survey maps of the area no such place exists. Bordon is a town and Whitehill is a village. They are two separate locations which should remain separate. The gap between must be maintained, thus deleting the use of this area, Hogmoor Inclosure west of the A325, for the proposed relief road.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21282

Received: 16/03/2012

Representation:

Set out general failings in terms of legality including public consultation, energy conservation, transport issues, landscape etc.
Prepartion of the JCS fails to accord with due process; eco-town bid was made secretly; there was no consultation.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21288

Received: 16/03/2012

Representation:

Unaware of any evidence of agreement between EHDC and adjoining LPAs (including SDNPA) over cross boundary issues such as housing. Not sufficient evidence to discharge duty to co-operate.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21311

Received: 16/03/2012

Representation:

The JCS does not state whether the required growth in numbers is gross or net. The JCS focuses on the north of the district, therefore it favours the northern parishes to the financial disadvantage of the parishes south of Butser. The JCS is set over too long a period of time. The document majors on what will happen rather than saying how.

Support

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21346

Received: 16/03/2012

Representation:

National Grid wish to be involved in preparation of DPDs that may affect assets, policies and plans. Aim to ensure safe and secure transportation of electricity and gas is not compromised.

Object

East Hampshire District Local Plan: Joint Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21915

Received: 14/03/2012

Representation:

NPPF: Fails to acknowledge requirements for strong, competitive economy, vital town centres and prosperous rural economy as emphasised in NPPF. Issues including high housing need, underdeveloped economy and out-commuting not properly highlighted.

More sensitive focus on local economy and social well-being needed in SDNP. Findings of Petersfield Study not properly reflected.

Lack of regard for the role of Neighbourhood Plans.

Vision (para 1.4) does not reflect key issues.

Changes to the planning system not recognised.

1.12 - should have closer regard to the Environment Act.

1.13 -Sustainable Community Strategy out of date.

1.14 - should cover wider range of policies.