Figure 5.4. Sequential Selection of Sites
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 13411
Received: 17/03/2016
Respondent: Mrs Jean Laut
No, No, No. Brownfield only and Re-use of brownfield. No green belt to be relinquished for development.
No, No, No. Brownfield only and Re-use of brownfield. No green belt to be relinquished for development.
Support
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14024
Received: 08/04/2016
Respondent: Glenda Fleming
Agree with the sequential approach to site selection (fig 5.4), where land within existing urban areas is given priority and only when needs cannot be fully met from here are locations within the Green Belt considered.
See two attached comment sheets.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14294
Received: 06/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn
As mentioned above I believed that a separate hierarchy should be developed for Job Growth and Employment as some of the concepts, such as intensified and infill development, are not particularly appropriate.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14295
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: J M Gillingham
As mentioned above I believed that a separate hierarchy should be developed for Job Growth and Employment as some of the concepts, such as intensified and infill development, are not particularly appropriate.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14296
Received: 06/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn
Figure 5.4 'Windfall' box
Similarly windfall development doesn't work very well in the hierarchy. By definition the location and circumstances surrounding these sites are unknown therefore these can't be assigned a place in hierarchy, they may vary from top to bottom of the hierarchy depending on their merits in meeting the borough's strategic objectives.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14297
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: J M Gillingham
Figure 5.4 'Windfall' box
Similarly windfall development doesn't work very well in the hierarchy. By definition the location and circumstances surrounding these sites are unknown therefore these can't be assigned a place in hierarchy, they may vary from top to bottom of the hierarchy depending on their merits in meeting the borough's strategic objectives.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14300
Received: 06/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn
Figure 5.4 'Greenfield sites in Green Belt' box
The Greenfield sites in Green Belt box could look something like:
- Intensified density of development
- Infill development
- Urban extensions within reach of services and
- Urban extensions not in reach of services and infrastructure
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14301
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: J M Gillingham
Figure 5.4 'Greenfield sites in Green Belt' box
The Greenfield sites in Green Belt box could look something like:
- Intensified density of development
- Infill development
- Urban extensions within reach of services and
- Urban extensions not in reach of services and infrastructure
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14303
Received: 06/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn
Figure 5.4 'Greenfield sites in Green Belt' box
The Dunton Hills Garden Village should not be part of the Plan. Instead attention should be turned to increasing the use of Urban areas and Brownfield sites in Green Belt. Nevertheless it may well be the case that some Greenfield sites in Green Belt will have to be developed, but this should be approached in a more sophisticated way.
I agree with the idea of development being in reach of services. However the idea that development growth be directed to transport corridors is repeatedly cited and is probably the main plank of the Plan e.g. Policy S01 and 5.1 so to constrain development by that same piece of infrastructure seems remarkably contradictory. The reasons given seem very simplistic and undermining of the role of the Local Plan.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14304
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: J M Gillingham
Figure 5.4 'Greenfield sites in Green Belt' box
The Dunton Hills Garden Village should not be part of the Plan. Instead attention should be turned to increasing the use of Urban areas and Brownfield sites in Green Belt. Nevertheless it may well be the case that some Greenfield sites in Green Belt will have to be developed, but this should be approached in a more sophisticated way.
I agree with the idea of development being in reach of services. However the idea that development growth be directed to transport corridors is repeatedly cited and is probably the main plank of the Plan e.g. Policy S01 and 5.1 so to constrain development by that same piece of infrastructure seems remarkably contradictory. The reasons given seem very simplistic and undermining of the role of the Local Plan.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14306
Received: 06/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn
Figure 5.4 'Strategic Sites' box
I disagree with this placing of 'Strategic Sites' in the hierarchy and even more so with the explanation 'Larger scale development...'
Firstly strategic means much more than large scale and in its broader sense it could be a subset of each of the spatial categories 'Urban areas', 'Brownfield sites in Green Belt' and 'Greenfield sites in Green Belt' rather than a self standing category in the hierarchy. The hierarchy could be improved so that it is clear what is meant by strategic and how this would play out within the tree main boxes. In a sense this process has already been started for the latter box.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14307
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: J M Gillingham
Figure 5.4 'Strategic Sites' box
I disagree with this placing of 'Strategic Sites' in the hierarchy and even more so with the explanation 'Larger scale development...'
Firstly strategic means much more than large scale and in its broader sense it could be a subset of each of the spatial categories 'Urban areas', 'Brownfield sites in Green Belt' and 'Greenfield sites in Green Belt' rather than a self standing category in the hierarchy. The hierarchy could be improved so that it is clear what is meant by strategic and how this would play out within the tree main boxes. In a sense this process has already been started for the latter box.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14308
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: J M Gillingham
*Figure 5.4 Urban area box
Within the 'Urban Area' box the concept of increasing the density of development needs to be raised and subsequently developed in the Plan through policies. It is readily apparent that this concept can help fulfill most of the Borough's vision by growing existing local economies and improving existing communities whilst maintaining the context of existing green spaces. It is this that will contribute most to protecting and nurturing its existing high quality environment.
This concept finds expression to various degrees in contributing to all Strategic Objectives other than perhaps S07.
To avoid misunderstanding of the word urban and to maximize growth in this way this should apply to all areas of existing development e.g. town, suburb village.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14309
Received: 06/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn
*Figure 5.4 Urban area box
Within the 'Urban Area' box the concept of increasing the density of development needs to be raised and subsequently developed in the Plan through policies. It is readily apparent that this concept can help fulfill most of the Borough's vision by growing existing local economies and improving existing communities whilst maintaining the context of existing green spaces. It is this that will contribute most to protecting and nurturing its existing high quality environment.
This concept finds expression to various degrees in contributing to all Strategic Objectives other than perhaps S07.
To avoid misunderstanding of the word urban and to maximize growth in this way this should apply to all areas of existing development e.g. town, suburb village.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14310
Received: 06/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn
Figure 5.4
Whilst I appreciate the aim of keeping figure 5.4 simple, since this is the root of supporting text and policies in Section 5 and further on in the Plan, the need for clarity is very important and this figure needs to be expanded and refined to draw out a few more items and concepts that are combined in the figure as currently drawn up.
I think the table is trying to do three things: (a) combine all types of development (b) explain the totality of sources of development and (c) create a hierarchy for decision making. The table would greatly benefit by separating theses strands. I believe that it could much better reflect the different drivers for development if say 'Housing' and 'Job Growth and Employment strands' were separated.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14311
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: J M Gillingham
Figure 5.4
Whilst I appreciate the aim of keeping figure 5.4 simple, since this is the root of supporting text and policies in Section 5 and further on in the Plan, the need for clarity is very important and this figure needs to be expanded and refined to draw out a few more items and concepts that are combined in the figure as currently drawn up.
I think the table is trying to do three things: (a) combine all types of development (b) explain the totality of sources of development and (c) create a hierarchy for decision making. The table would greatly benefit by separating theses strands. I believe that it could much better reflect the different drivers for development if say 'Housing' and 'Job Growth and Employment strands' were separated.
See attached.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14462
Received: 18/04/2016
Respondent: Asphaltic Developments Ltd
Agent: Rapleys LLP
We support this approach in principle, as it promotes the sustainable patterns of development to accommodate growth/development needs without encroaching onto Greenfield land. However we consider that brownfield sites in Green Belt that are connected to, or close to, urban areas are sustainable urban extensions, and as such they should be released to meet the housing requirements of the Borough before releasing Greenfield sites. As such, we consider that the definition of "Brownfield Sites in Green Belt" is not appropriate, and should be amended as "previously developed sites connected to or close to existing urban areas."
See attached
Support
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 15286
Received: 03/05/2016
Respondent: Brentwood School
Number of people: 2
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Support the sequential land use approach which prioritise Brownfield sites within existing urban areas and to consider all appropriate land within existing urban areas (paragraph 5.16 and figure 5.4).
See attached.
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 16128
Received: 16/05/2016
Respondent: Countryside Properties
Agent: Andrew Martin Planning Ltd
In order to meet full objectively assessed needs in a short space of time requires the Council to be realistic about the likelihood of sites coming forward and the Plan states that "more evidence will be required to prove this moving forward to the next stage of the plan making process". Full objectively assessed needs in a short space of time". This requires the Council to be realistic about the likelihood of sites coming forward and the Plan states that "more evidence will be required to prove this moving forward to the next stage of the plan making process".
See attached