Object

Representation ID: 491

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Brentwood School

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

With respect to Policy DM2 we recommend a minor amendment that the word only be deleted from the first sentence of that Policy as its inclusion is unnecessary and unduly onerous.

Support

Representation ID: 567

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Hansteen support this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 822

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

We would question whether Policy DM2 is required as this policy appears to duplicate Policy DM1. Whilst we acknowledge that development proposals are required to address links with adjoining sites, incorporate features of value and design-out crime, these could be (and arguably are already) incorporated within Policy DM1.

Comment

Representation ID: 981

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

Page 77 paragraph 'd' states - "Safeguard the amenities of occupiers or any nearby properties by ensuring that their character and appearance is sensitive to the context and surroundings"

We believe this policy should be modified to show that implementation of this policy should be safeguarded by planning applications having to explicitly demonstrate how compliance with this policy has been achieved.