3.15

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation

Representation ID: 46

Received: 14/08/2013

Respondent: Mrs Jill Hubbard

Representation Summary:

the strongest possible objection to this proposal. The steady development of access roads and industries which has been going on at Codham Hall Farm, contrary to planning regulations for many years, is completely wrong and it's a disgrace that BBC Planning Department has turned a blind eye to this.Why should past irregularities be condoned and approved retrospectively by this new proposal? BBC should be enforcing the regulations, not using the fact that they've already been ignored as an excuse to allow further development. The proposed development is inappropriate and unsuitable for this rural location in green-belt land.

Full text:

I state the strongest possible objection to this proposal. The steady development of access roads, businesses and industries which has been going on at Codham Hall Farm, out of sight and out of mind and contrary to planning regulations for many years, is completely wrong and a disgrace that BBC Planning Department has turned a blind eye to this. To suggest that (3.19) "this provides an opportunity to regulate existing industrial uses that have grown up over the years in agricultural type buildings" is unbelievable. Why should past irregularities be condoned and approved retrospectively by this new proposal? BBC should be enforcing the regulations, not using the fact that they've already been ignored as an excuse to allow further development. The proposed development is completely inappropriate,
unnecessary and unsuitable for this rural location in green-belt land.

Comment

Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation

Representation ID: 3374

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: S Walsh and Sons Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Representation Summary:

Questions the wording within paragraph 3.15 of the justification of the policy. Paragraph 3.15 states that "previously developed land in this location provides an opportunity for new employment land in the form of a business park". It is our understanding that the proposed 'Brentwood Enterprise Park' was constructed for contractors to undertake works to widen the M25 under permitted development. Now that these works have ceased and the site has been vacated, the land should now be returned to countryside. It is therefore considered that this site should not fall within the definition of 'previously developed'.

Full text:

See Attached

Attachments: