Support

Representation ID: 333

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Mr Richard Lunnon

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

General support is offered for this policy. However, it is felt that there is many more frontages which are not identified and should be included in this policy.

Support

Representation ID: 399

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

JTS generally supports this policy, which is consistent with some of the categories of development identified in paragraph 89 of the NPPF as potentially being appropriate in the Green Belt. We consider that the policy introduces, in accordance with NPPF guidance, a degree of flexibility and will allow genuine in-fill plots, which, although currently located in the Green Belt, in practice, serve no Green Belt function, to be brought forward for development. However, we are of the view that there are many more 'relevant frontages', than are currently listed in the policy, to which it should apply.

Support

Representation ID: 510

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

JTS generally supports this policy. We consider that the policy introduces, in accordance with NPPF guidance, a degree of flexibility and will allow genuine in-fill plots, which, although currently located in the Green Belt, in practice, serve no Green Belt function, to be brought forward for development.
However, we are of the view that there are many more 'relevant frontages', than are currently listed in the policy, to which it should apply. Accordingly, the Council should review the frontages to which the policy applies.

Object

Representation ID: 516

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: P A Scott Associates

Agent: P A Scott Associates

Policy DM12 does not detail the criteria for assessment as to how those areas in the policy qualify to be established areas of development, and how other sites in the Borough do not.

It is suggested that certain parts of certain villages, for example our site, could be considered to be an established area of development. If this is the case, then building on this infill plot would be supported by the draft local plan. It is suggested that the analysis of those areas that would constitute established areas of development is unduly restrictive.

Support

Representation ID: 716

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: CLM Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

The Company generally supports this policy, which it finds to be consistent with some of the categories of development identified in paragraph 89 of the NPPF as potentially being appropriate in the Green Belt. However it is considered that the restriction of the policy to specific frontages, noted at the end of the policy, is inconsistent with the NPPF and the final sentence of this policy should be deleted, with emphasis instead placed upon "established areas of frontage ribbon development".

Object

Representation ID: 1334

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: Laindon Holdings Ltd

Agent: Town Planning Services

This policy considers 'established areas of development' with reference to 'frontage ribbon development' within the Green Belt. The policy identifies specific locations. Whilst it is appropriate to recognise that areas of established ribbon development may provide greater opportunity for development, the policy only looks to residential development. It should also be recognised that there are similarly areas of commercial ribbon development. Land at Brook Street, Brentwood is an area of commercial ribbon development. It occupies a sustainable location on the edge of Brentwood and is no longer appropriate for inclusion within the Green Belt.