Fig. 15. Primary School Capacity

Showing comments and forms 1 to 3 of 3

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18309

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Hermes Investment Management

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Representation:

The plan's reference to Figure 15 is acknowledged and Hermes would welcome an opportunity to help develop a better understanding if the requirement for primary school places arsing form the redevelopment proposals for West Horndon.

Full text:

The plan's reference to Figure 15 is acknowledged and Hermes would welcome an opportunity to help develop a better understanding if the requirement for primary school places arsing form the redevelopment proposals for West Horndon.

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18314

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Hermes Investment Management

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Representation:

In relation to para 83c, Hermes support this approach and would welcome discussions with the Council.

Full text:

In relation to para 83c, Hermes support this approach and would welcome discussions with the Council.

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19619

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Redrow Homes

Representation:

The RAG coding is not explained in the text of the document and we consider that it should be in order to understand the significance of the assessment.

Full text:

Figure 9 - we note that this figure neglects to identify the brownfield opportunities in Green Belt locations. We object to this omission and request that it be amended to note that this has been factored into the development strategy. Redrow Homes is in the process of bringing forward a large brownfield site at Ingatestone Garden Centre. The redevelopment of this derelict site in the Green Belt will assist in meeting identified needs and in restoring the appearance of the area. It is right that the brownfield land allocation within the Green Belt is acknowledged and would be consistent with the requirements of the draft NPPF. Interim Sustainability Appraisal (SA) - The Interim SA advises that it welcomes comments from stakeholders. Redrow Homes owns one of
the proposed allocation sites (site 128). It intends to bring this site forward for development as soon as planning permission is granted. Site 128 is included in the Interim SA and the appraisal so far raises a few concerns that Redrow Homes wishes to comment on. These relate to the topics used for assessment and how these have been applied to this site. Special Landscape Area - Site 128 is given an amber rating for this in Table C and the notes in Table B say that this is to reflect potential the effects on landscape. It is unclear how this can be assessed at this stage as there is no reference as to what is special about the landscape that could be affected and no account is take of the existing redundant nature of the site. It is further noted that the SLA designation is not proposed to be carried forward into the new development plan. It is also noted at Table A that "Limited data is available to inform the appraisal. Work is ongoing to ensure that all site options are categorised in terms of potential for landscape impacts and also the potential to result in loss of functioning Green Belt (i.e. Green Belt that meets the established purposes). This work will be drawn upon in the future." It is apparent, therefore, that this rating will need to be updated when further information is available and we would ask that it also include an assessment that takes into account the existing nature of the site, the potential for landscape enhancement and the removal of the SLA designation. Distances to facilities (criteria 7-9) - It is noted that Department of Transport walking distance guidelines have been used to rate the distance from these facilities. Consideration should be given to departing from these in light of the health benefits of walking and the NHS guidance that specifically encourages walking to maintain a healthy lifestyle. For these reasons it is considered that the walking distances should be extended. Site allocation 128 - we note that this site is described as being a self-contained urban extension with the neighbouring site (site 106). Redrow Homes owns site 128 and is bringing this forward for development. It has no control over site 106 and would not wish the wording of the allocation to be misconstrued as meaning that both sites must come forward together. The proximity of the site to the settlement boundary means that is clearly an urban extension and therefore it is suggested that the reference to site 106 is unnecessary. As such, it is requested that this be deleted from the allocation summary. SO1 - we support the strategic objective to maximise the sustainable growth opportunities of brownfield sites. Redrow Homes has a large brownfield site at Ingatestone Garden Centre that it is bringing forward for development. The use of such sites ensures that greenfield site release can be minimised and that previously developed land can be re-used to meet existing needs. SO3 - we support the strategic objective to support the sustainable growth of existing larger villages to provide improved housing choice and protect services and facilities. This is a welcome recognition of the benefits arising from developments in such locations. Figure 15 - the RAG coding is not explained in the text of the document and we consider that it should be in order to understand the significance of the assessment.