MM111
Support
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29535
Received: 04/11/2021
Respondent: Essex County Council
2. Justified
3. Effective
In principle ECC as highway and transportation authority is satisfied that Warley Street (B186) could be used as an additional access to the Codham Hall Farm site and the additional wording in criterion 1.a. of Policy E10.
This reaffirms ECC’s position in its Examination statement F126B (paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3).
2. Justified
3. Effective
In principle ECC as highway and transportation authority is satisfied that Warley Street (B186) could be used as an additional access to the Codham Hall Farm site and the additional wording in criterion 1.a. of Policy E10.
This reaffirms ECC’s position in its Examination statement F126B (paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3).
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29697
Received: 10/11/2021
Respondent: Essex County Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
3.Not Effective
ECC welcomes the inclusion of criterion 1.d. within Policy E10, however it should be amended to be consistent with criteria in other Local Plan site allocation policies.
In order to futureproof the policy and ensure that development provides the appropriate walking and cycling provision in the future, in line with NPPF 92.c, 104 c, 106d, the supporting text needs to provide clarity on the types of other ‘relevant evidence’ which is referenced in the Policy. It needs to be made clear that such evidence should include details on future key destinations and attractors for walking and cycling connections.
3.Not Effective
ECC welcomes the inclusion of criterion 1.d. within Policy E10, however it should be amended to be consistent with criteria in other Local Plan site allocation policies.
In order to futureproof the policy and ensure that development provides the appropriate walking and cycling provision in the future, in line with NPPF 92.c, 104 c, 106d, the supporting text needs to provide clarity on the types of other ‘relevant evidence’ which is referenced in the Policy. It needs to be made clear that such evidence should include details on future key destinations and attractors for walking and cycling connections.
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 29702
Received: 10/11/2021
Respondent: Essex County Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
2.Not Justified
3.Not Effective
4.Not Consistent with National Policy
ECC as LLFA for BBC consider inclusion of supporting text for site specific policies, including potential risk of flooding references, and links to Local Plan sustainable drainage and flood risk policies, provides clarity to applicants/decisions makers of need for consideration of flooding matters at beginning of planning process.
New paragraph after 9.219 ensures factual representation of current flooding position (NPPF 159, 160). Amend to provide links to Local Plan sustainable drainage and flood risk policies.
Reflects ECC’s Reg.19 Rep 22506, position in BBC/ECC SoCG (F17D), and Hearing Statement G7AN – paragraph1.42.
2. Not Justified
3. Not Effective
4. Not Consistent with National Policy
ECC as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) for BBC consider that the inclusion of supporting text for the site specific policies, in particular, including reference to the potential risk of flooding, and links back to the sustainable drainage and flood risk policies in the Local Plan, will provide clarity to applicants and decisions makers of the need for consideration of flooding matters at the beginning of the planning process.
ECC therefore welcome the proposed modifications to include the new paragraph after 9.219 as it ensures factual representation of the current position in respect of flooding, in line with paragraphs 159 and 160 of the NPPF.
ECC would recommend that the last sentence is amended to provide the links back to the sustainable drainage and flood risk policies in the Local Plan.
This reflects ECC’s Reg.19 Rep 22506, the position in the Statement of Common Ground (F17D) between BBC and ECC, and the position in its Hearing Statement G7AN – paragraph 1.42.
Object
Schedule of Potential Main Modifications
Representation ID: 30163
Received: 30/11/2021
Respondent: S&J Padfield and Partners (SJP)
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Policy text should make clear contributions should only be demanded where necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
It should be noted contributions to infrastructure provision should only be in relation to any additional infrastructure requirements generated by future development of site E10.
We do not consider reference to the M25 J28 and to West Horndon Station as proposed recipients of contributions from development at site E10 could be considered necessary, given the lack of any evidence to suggest that any development at site E10 could be likely to engender a need to make contributions to their improvement. We do not consider that the proposed reference to these infrastructure items in the policy is justified.
See attached