Comment

Representation ID: 15733

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Wyevale Garden Centres Ltd

Agent: Greogory Gray Associates

All previously developed lands are sequentially preferable to greenfield Green Belt sites on the edge of a settlement and it is requested that the proposed sequential hierarchy (Policy 5.1) be amended to reflect this.

Object

Representation ID: 16042

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Elizabeth Finn Care

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

We note that sites have been selected based on a "sequential approach to sustainable land use" (paragraph 7.29 of the DLP). This appears to result in any site within an existing settlement boundary being automatically considered more sustainable than brownfield sites in the Green Belt, which in turn are considered inherently more sustainable than any greenfield site in the Green Belt. We question the soundness of such a simplistic approach to the consideration of sustainability, and whether this approach will result in the most sustainable strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives. Furthermore, it is unclear whether a Green Belt review has been undertaken prior to this filtering process to determine whether all land currently allocated as such meets the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, as set out in the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 16043

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Elizabeth Finn Care

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Five greenfield Green Belt site are proposed for allocation for housing development in the DLP. The justification for the identification of the five greenfield Green Belt sites is unclear, as is the justification for the rejection of land adjacent to Rayleigh Road, Hutton.

Comment

Representation ID: 16045

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Elizabeth Finn Care

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

In terms of site reference GO92 and its assessment in the SHLAA 2011, the SHLAA 2011 found the site GO92 to be available and achievable, but stated that it was not suitable. The justification for this set out within the SHLAA was as follows:
"The site lies within the Hutton Village conservation area and development on this scale would have an unacceptable impact on the character of the conservation area. Development would also have a detrimental impact on the visual and landscape quality of the area." The above concerns have been addressed through subsequent submissions to the
Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 16048

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Elizabeth Finn Care

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Submissions were made in relation to a smaller area of land that forms part of site GO92 in response to the Council's consultation on Strategic Growth Options and Dunton Garden Suburb Local Plan Consultation in February 2015. This submission was accompanied by extensive supporting technical work, comprising:


* Site Opportunities and Constraints plan prepared by Go Planning Ltd.
* Site Master planning prepared by Go Planning Ltd.
* Site Context Sheets 1 & 2
* Site Landscape Assessment prepared by Lockhart Garratt
* Tree Constraints and Opportunities Report prepared by Lockhart Garratt
* Ecological Constraints and Opportunities Report prepared by Lockhart Garratt
* Access Appraisal prepared by Journey Transport Planning.
Submission also addressed concerns raised by the SHLAA in respect of the larger area of land in which the site sits

Comment

Representation ID: 16159

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: Joy Fook Restaurant

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

The Council should follow a hierarchical approach to identifying land to meet residential need, along the following lines:
1. Existing urban areas
2. Existing developed sites in Green Belt
3. Review of Green Belt boundaries to ensure consistency with para 84 and 85 NPPG guidance. Boundaries to follow clear, recognisable, physical features and Green Belt not to include land which is unnecessary to keep open (such as land surrounded by development or which is part of a settlement).
4. Release of sites on the edge of existing settlements.
5. New settlements (Dutton Garden Suburb).

It is only by following a hierarchical approach, and analysing the impact on the Green Belt at each stage, that the Council can assure itself that the overall impact of the Green Belt will be minimised.

Comment

Representation ID: 16186

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Hugh Thomson

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

The Council should follow a hierarchical approach to identifying land to meet residential need, along the following lines:
1. Existing urban areas
2. Existing developed sites in Green Belt
3. Review of Green Belt boundaries to ensure consistency with para 84 and 85 NPPG guidance. Boundaries to follow clear, recognisable, physical features and Green Belt not to include land which is unnecessary to keep open (such as land surrounded by development or which is part of a settlement).
4. Release of sites on the edge of existing settlements.
5. New settlements (Dutton Garden Suburb).

It is only by following a hierarchical approach, and analysing the impact on the Green Belt at each stage, that the Council can assure itself that the overall impact of the Green Belt will be minimised.

Support

Representation ID: 16225

Received: 18/05/2016

Respondent: Landmere Carwash

Use of Brownfield land in the Green Belt supported.

Support

Representation ID: 16239

Received: 18/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Paul Day

Use of Brownfield land in the Green Belt supported.

Support

Representation ID: 16253

Received: 18/05/2016

Respondent: Time 4 pets

Use of Brownfield land in the Green Belt supported.