Figure 5.4. Sequential Selection of Sites

Showing comments and forms 1 to 19 of 19

Object

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 13411

Received: 17/03/2016

Respondent: Mrs Jean Laut

Representation Summary:

No, No, No. Brownfield only and Re-use of brownfield. No green belt to be relinquished for development.

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See two attached comment sheets.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14294

Received: 06/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14295

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: J M Gillingham

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14296

Received: 06/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14297

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: J M Gillingham

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14300

Received: 06/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14301

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: J M Gillingham

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14303

Received: 06/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14304

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: J M Gillingham

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14306

Received: 06/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14307

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: J M Gillingham

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14308

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: J M Gillingham

Representation Summary:

*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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14309

Received: 06/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn

Representation Summary:

*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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14310

Received: 06/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14311

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: J M Gillingham

Representation Summary:

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.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Comment

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 14462

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Asphaltic Developments Ltd

Agent: Rapleys LLP

Representation Summary:

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."

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 15286

Received: 03/05/2016

Respondent: Brentwood School

Number of people: 2

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Representation Summary:

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).

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Object

Draft Local Plan

Representation ID: 16128

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Planning Ltd

Representation Summary:

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".

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: