Question 7

Showing comments and forms 541 to 561 of 561

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12688

Received: 24/04/2015

Respondent: Barwood Land and Estates Ltd

Agent: Chilmark Consulting Limited

Representation Summary:

The SGO sets out the approach for employment site options, identifying the need for up additional employment land. This need requires a balanced approach to the consideration of employment site locations and options. This analysis is complex and nuanced and should consider a wider set of criteria than identifying locations close to the strategic highway network. (Refer to Paragraph 016, NPPF). In practice employment sites should be in proximity to established and future working population and accessible by a range of transport.Indeed, such an approach would underplay the economic potential of Crossrail that will significantly enhance the accessibility of Brentwood town and Shenfield to centres of employment outside the Borough in a wider functional economic market area and also enhance the opportunities for business to attract a skilled labour force from within the Borough and from elsewhere.

Full text:

See attached questionnaire.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12689

Received: 24/04/2015

Respondent: Barwood Land and Estates Ltd

Agent: Chilmark Consulting Limited

Representation Summary:

there will be a range of employment needs arising (in terms of the location, size and nature of employment sites/floorspace) from different economic sectors and occupiers that in turn have diverse requirements for B Use Class floorspace. Access to the strategic highway network may, or may not, be a priority for different sectors and occupiers. The SGO identifies the diversity of employment site requirements but need to more fully substantiate the conclusion drawn that locations close to the strategic highway network are most appropriate because "they meet modern business needs".

Full text:

See attached questionnaire.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12690

Received: 24/04/2015

Respondent: Barwood Land and Estates Ltd

Agent: Chilmark Consulting Limited

Representation Summary:

The approach of allocating new employment sites predominantly on strategic highway networks should be properly considered against the requirements of the NPPF at paragraph 37 aiming to create a balance of land uses in order to minimise journey lengths for employment; and paragraph 38 with respect to encouraging the promotion of a mix of uses, including work on-site for larger scale residential developments.

Full text:

See attached questionnaire.

Attachments:

Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12720

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: One Property Group Ltd

Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd

Representation Summary:

Borough has unmet employment need, partly due to new homes requiring new jobs. The Economic Futures report (2014) sets out three scenarios, the highest (including replacement of existing employment land losses) requires 37.35 and 41.65 hectares of new employment land. This should be higher if more existing employment sites are re-allocated. The report sets out that majority of job growth is expected to be office-based.

Strategy should focus employment development in and around primary urban areas; more sustainable and accessible with reduced trip lengths, in accordance with NPPF.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12754

Received: 24/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Durrell

Representation Summary:

No.

Full text:

Q1: Do not build on green land.

Q2: No. Please let small villages remain part of English heritage and not overpopulate them.

Q3: Yes, leave the Green Belt alone. Do not build on Green Belt.

Q4: I think this has already happened near Dunton Ford's. Another large town has been created but where are the schools and why have the roads not been addressed already to deal with the extra population?

Q5: No. I don't want to live in a London Borough. I like that we are a small town and have a community feel.

Q6: No.

Q7: No.

Q8: Retail is a key part of our community. Not big supermarkets and department stores.

Q9: Yes.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Q11: Houses: 4
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 3
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 3

Q12: Yes. The new port at Tilbury and the impact our village will have if the M25 and A130 fails to work. A128 will be used as a cut through to bypass the roads. Pollution and safety has not been addressed.

Q13: Ensuring our roads are safe and well maintained including pavements.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12768

Received: 24/02/2015

Respondent: Mr John Copps

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

Q1: No. This is mainly Green Belt plus fields. Please let there be some open spaces in Brentwood.

Q2: No. The infrastructure and facilities and local services are already stretched to the max.

Q3: No.

Q4: None. Find somewhere else.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Do not touch Green Belt.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: No.

Q9: No.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Being a village which are slowly being lost in England: 5

Q11: Houses: 4
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 4
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 4
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: No.

Q13: Making existing roads more roadworthy. Dealing with speed limits, especially on A128 which can be very dangerous. More buses and school buses to encourage more use.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12783

Received: 29/04/2015

Respondent: Mrs Edna Connaway

Representation Summary:

This essential as it will also build traffic in these areas, and must have existing transport links.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12800

Received: 30/04/2015

Respondent: John E Rolfe

Representation Summary:

No. All highways in this area are already over capacity!!!

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12812

Received: 30/04/2015

Respondent: Mr David Wood

Representation Summary:

No.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12846

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Miss Kelly Bowers

Representation Summary:

No.

Full text:

Q1: No. I think the government need to look at unused inner city buildings, derelict land and so forth. Keep our Green Belt identify, protect our heritage and not overbuild.

Q2: No.

Q3: Yes. Keep our villages especially Blackmore as it is. We haven't the resources and the roads would become dangerous, congested and like a town.

Q4: Not sure.

Q5: No.

Q6: Is this a question or a statement? I do not agree with using Green Belt at all. I strongly believe that Brentwood or elsewhere could be developed more.

Q7: No.

Q8: Yes.

Q9: As in what provision? Don't know.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5
Other - Green Belts saved re Woollard Way - my road and my children's view and safety: 5

Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2
Other - Space and Tranquillity, English Heritage: 4

Q12: Quality of life, enjoying greenery of a natural environment. Safety for our children to grow up more free, not a built up area - this is why we moved to Blackmore, Woollard Way.

Q13: Don't know.


These questions are very biased and vague.

I do not want Woollard Way - the brownfield area of Green Belt to be developed / built on. This will devastate us. We moved here for the greenery and views. This will devalue our homes, effect our children's freedom and security. A close made into a noisy road would be categorically wrong and devastating. All the children love watching the horses, wildlife in the field next to use, they play out with no through traffic.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12862

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Michael Jefferyes

Representation Summary:

Yes. Ultimately the bulk of commuter traffic will use the highway network.
If new sites are created at some distance from these highways, then all of that traffic will add to congestion and polution on the routes for all of that extra distance onto the highways.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12879

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Dean Shepherd

Representation Summary:

No.

Full text:

Q1: No

Q2: No

Q3: Yes - The proposed site will increase traffic to a quiet road in the village that doesn't have the capacity to accommodate increased traffic.

Q4: No because the site isn't located near the A127.

Q5: No.

Q6: No these should stay Green Belt as the feel of the area will become urbanised and not village like.

Q7: No.

Q8: Yes - The population of the village has increased and the shops are struggling to cope this is without future development.

Q9: No.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Degraded/Derelict/Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 3

Q12: Yes - The additional funds should be spent improving residents safety by erecting more street lights and local buses.

Q13: Pedestrian safety and local street lights, buses, better road surfaces.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12904

Received: 05/05/2015

Respondent: Mr Luke Wenban

Representation Summary:

With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primarily residential development, it is key that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the local area (A127 Corridor). These must however be accessible via public transport as well as via road.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12926

Received: 05/05/2015

Respondent: Mrs Leanne Wenban-Price

Representation Summary:

With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primarily residential development, it is key that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the local area (A127 Corridor). These must however be accessible via public transport as well as via road.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12938

Received: 05/05/2015

Respondent: Mrs Anika Perry

Representation Summary:

Yes

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12951

Received: 05/05/2015

Respondent: Mr Ronan Hart

Representation Summary:

No

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 12967

Received: 05/05/2015

Respondent: Hermes Fund Managers Limited

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Representation Summary:

A significant reason for the decline of the industrial estates in West Horndon is the relatively poor road links to the strategic highway network. However, our traffic experts suggest local roads within and around West Horndon are adequately suited to the car traffic from a residential reuse of the estates; that would replace the industrial estates' commercial traffic in the event of redevelopment.

Hermes considers employment sites situated close to the strategic highway network would be successful and would encourage Brentwood to bring forward new employment sites in these locations.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 13017

Received: 07/05/2015

Respondent: Mr Barry Bunker

Representation Summary:

Yes

Full text:

See attached

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 13030

Received: 08/05/2015

Respondent: Mrs Elaine Smith

Representation Summary:

Yes you have to have good infrastructure , connections could easily be built at Dunton.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Support

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 13060

Received: 14/04/2015

Respondent: Mr Kenneth Wooldridge

Representation Summary:

Yes.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments:

Object

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 13071

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Joan McCready

Representation Summary:

No - Turn the disused office blocks into factories.

Full text:

Q1: This entire exercise is pathetic when shipyards, coalmines and factories were closed down there was a need for an excercise such as this in those locations.

Q2: See my husbands answers.
2 yes by all means consider the issues, providing that the answer in Q1 is considered.
3 One who is opposed to the envisaged growth there seems to be little point in commenting on an y individual site.
5, No - the previous answers deal with this.
6 No, no, no.
7. No - Turn the disused office blocks into factories.
10
Scenic Beauty/Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

11
Nature Reserves/Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded/Derelict/Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 4
Leisure/Recreation Facilities: 2

8 Yes - But no more supermarkets.
9 Yes - Instead of farmland being sold to developers, use ot for leisure.

4 None. The A127 is developing into a built up corridor from London to Southend.
12 No - This whole programme should have been rejected. We have an MP who is a member of the government, what is his part in this?
13 The previous answers deal with this.
1.14 Consultations. For a consultation process this must be seen as a disgrace.While there has been talk of growth - only today (16/02/2015) have we seen consultation documents. It has to be asked just who has been consulted.

Attachments: