Comment

Representation ID: 277

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: Essex County Council

Policy DM9 - New Retail and Commercial Leisure Development

Criteria k, page 92 - add `with appropriate mitigation'

Support

Representation ID: 571

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

West Horndon's retail offer is relatively poor, limited to two small top-up shops and a handful of other retail businesses. Hansteen considers that there is retailer demand for further appropriately-sized retail provision within West Horndon. This is also evident in anecdotal accounts from residents and business tenants leaving the village to fulfill their retail needs elsewhere (and not always in Brentwood). This demand will increase as the numbers of houses within the village increases. Policy S4's commitment to improving West Horndon's retail offer is welcomed.

Comment

Representation ID: 644

Received: 25/09/2013

Respondent: Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Our client wishes to point out that the provision of retail and commercial leisure floorspace in West Horndon will not be delivered unless new homes are constructed in this location is order to create the necessary critical mass and demand to sustain its existence. This level of demand is likely to be generated through the construction of new homes in West Horndon.

Object

Representation ID: 660

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Waitrose Ltd

We recommmend amendments to this policy so that it provides for sufficient flexibility and is in conformity with NPPF. Please amend as per attached.

Support

Representation ID: 1167

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Highcross

Agent: Rapleys LLP

This policy is supported in that it allows development outside the borough's primary shopping centres of up to 2,500sqm without requiring a retail assessment.

Object

Representation ID: 1330

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: Laindon Holdings Ltd

Agent: Town Planning Services

The policy seeks to reflect the requirements of the sequential approach and the assessment of impact required under the National Planning Policy Framework. However, the criteria within the policy are overly complex and are inconsistent with the Framework. In particular, the Policy requires that proposals have "no impact on the vitality and viability" of existing centres. This is inconsistent with the Framework and the presumption in favour of sustainable development. In this context, the suggested requirement that there be "no impact" is entirely unreasonable and is contrary to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.