Comment

Representation ID: 13897

Received: 06/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Ian Blackburn

I disagree with the part of point e regarding proximity to the A127, A12 and M25.

This wording could mitigate again employment proposals some way removed from those roads.

It is far more sustainable both in terms of transport and in developing communities for employment to be embedded within or close to existing development than simply being close to these major roads.

The clause is also superfluous considering point f requires the proposal to be covered by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. This is the place for assessing travel impacts not a prejudged blanket assumption.
Finally it is somewhat ironic that the A128 is not included in this list considering the massive increase in traffic this would receive were the Dunton Hills Garden Village development to proceed.

Comment

Representation ID: 14057

Received: 11/04/2016

Respondent: J M Gillingham

I disagree with the part of point e regarding proximity to the A127, A12 and M25.

This wording could mitigate again employment proposals some way removed from those roads.

It is far more sustainable both in terms of transport and in developing communities for employment to be embedded within or close to existing development than simply being close to these major roads.

The clause is also superfluous considering point f requires the proposal to be covered by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plan. This is the place for assessing travel impacts not a prejudged blanket assumption.
Finally it is somewhat ironic that the A128 is not included in this list considering the massive increase in traffic this would receive were the Dunton Hills Garden Village development to proceed.

Support

Representation ID: 14600

Received: 19/04/2016

Respondent: Childerditch Properties

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Proposed Policy 8.3 is supported on the basis that the proposed allocation for the Range will be able to fully meet the criteria set out.

In particular an extension of 2.34 hectares to the Childerditch Industrial Park would satisfy the Employment Development Criteria as follows:
a) The proposed extension by 1/10th is of a scale that would not have a significant visual or impact upon the locality as indicated by supporting documents.
b) Supporting documents confirm that the development on The Range North would not have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area.
c) The Childerditch Industrial Park is exceptionally well located on the road network as indicated in the AA.

Comment

Representation ID: 15760

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: National Highways

A key employment development site is Brentwood Enterprise Park, which is located to the east of M25 J29. We consider that this could have a significant effect on the operation of the junction, due to the size of the development and its proximity to the junction. The Local Plan indicates that public transport will be encouraged at the site to encourage employees to make use of alternatives to private car use. However, the extent of the public transport provision, access by cyclists and pedestrians is unclear at this stage. It is important that this provision is extensive and covers long distance as well as short distance trips, to try and minimise the impact of the development on the Strategic Road Network. The access and egress arrangements to this site are also potentially challenging and it is recommended that the proposals for these are discussed with Highways England to provide reassurance that safe and acceptable operation can be achieved at an early stage. It is important that all out of town sites are well connected to the public transport network, both in terms of bus provision and access to nearby rail stations to ensure longer distance strategic trips have an alternative to private vehicle use. Whilst this approach is supported through Policy 8.3, the Local Plan does not provide specific public transport details and therefore the extent of the intended public transport provision is unknown.

Comment

Representation ID: 15807

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

Provision of Industrial Land in Essex plays an important role in providing locations for waste management facilities and aggregate recycling plants. ECC considers the existing policies are too restrictive and the provision for "any associated employment generating sui generis uses" within these policies and respective employment areas should be permitted. ECC recommends the following Draft Local Plan Policy be amended accordingly: `Development for employment uses (Class B1, B2 or B8) and any associated employment generating sui generis uses will be encouraged provided the proposal'
Criterion d), this criterion is too restrictive and is not supported by ECC, as highway authority.

Support

Representation ID: 15887

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Sammi Developments Ltd

Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd

The criteria set out in this Policy are supported.

Site 175B at Brook Street/Nags Head Lane complies with these criteria and the site is particularly well located in terms of the main arterial routes of the A12 and the M25. The site is more accessible by public transport, walking and cycling than the draft allocations at Brentwood Enterprise Centre to the south of the Borough.

Support

Representation ID: 16008

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC

Number of people: 2

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

The encouragement provided for new employment proposals that provide new jobs and boost the local economy is supported. We consider that clarity should be provided within the plan as to whether these policy criteria will also apply to strategic employment allocations. If this is the case the criteria should be carefully worded so as not to prejudice or delay the delivery of such strategic sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 16037

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Sammi Developments Ltd

Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd

This should be amended to include reference to representation site at Brook Street/Nags Head Lane.