S3: Job Growth and Employment Land
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 308
Received: 11/09/2013
Respondent: Epping Forest District Council
To note (a) the proposed jobs growth figure of 5,400 between 2015 and 2030 and to advise that the stated annual growth figure of 285 will not reach the target - the correct figure should be 360; and (b) the allocation of an additional 31ha as employment land including a substantial site at J29 of the M25 (Brentwood Enterprise Park).
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 385
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP
We note the Council's preferred growth option and the fact that it seeks to identify both existing employment sites and land for new employment development. However, we consider that the Council has omitted a number of sites which are currently being used for employment purposes and that, accordingly, this part of the policy needs to be reviewed. We fully support Brentwoods decision to reallocate a number of existing employment sites for
alternative development (such as the Wates Way Industrial Estate), where the proposed alternative use(s) make more efficient use of the land and helps satisfy the shortfall in housing land.
see attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 454
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Sans Souci Enterprises Limited
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Sans Souci supports the Council's decision to adopt the growth option underlying this policy and the employment allocations arising there from.
In particular, the Company is pleased that the Borough Council had recognised the failings, and inadequacies, of the Wates Way Industrial Estate, as both a site, and location, for 'traditional' employment activities. Accordingly, the Company fully supports the Borough Council's decision to reallocate the site for residential development (Policy DM23) and to make provision, within Policy S3, for the nominal loss of existing employment land that will arise from the reallocation/redevelopment of the site.
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 673
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: One Property Group Ltd
Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd
The proposed growth option is supported over the identified alternative growth options. New employment land is essential to support growth in the Borough, particularly given the low levels of employment land in recent years, and as a consequence the proposed growth option should be considered flexibly and job figures treated as minimums rather than as targets. Policy should be amended as follows:
The word 'minimum' added before '5400 additional jobs' in the policy text, with 'Total' and 'Indicative' replaced by 'Minimum' in the table headings, and the word 'minimum' replacing 'total' in the final paragraph.
See Attachment
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 683
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: The Croll Group
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
The analysis to support the West Horndon Allocation is the SA and the site assessment proformas. This is insuffient evidence to exclude our clients site from the allocation and the Plan does not therefore sufficiently consider the alternatives such as our clients land, given its sustainable location and relationship to West Horndon.
See Attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 719
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: S Walsh and Sons Ltd
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
we support the council's decision to adopt the growth option underlying this Policy however, they question the employment allocations arising as a result of the policy. The Company is pleased to see the Council seeking a higher figure for the provision of additional jobs, above the alternative growth options and the Council considering both existing and new employment sites/allocations. However, the Council's figures for existing employment sites requires further review, to include the East Horndon Business Park, which is an area in excess of 1 hectare and an overall site ownership extending to 4.6 ha, excluded from these current figures.
See Attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 814
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd
Agent: Barton Willmore
Given the NPPF requirement and considering the Heart of Essex Economic Futures Study, we maintain the view that the Council cannot use the Borough's Green Belt location as an excuse for not meeting the necessary land requirements. There are sites on the edge of the Borough's main settlements which can accommodate new homes and employment floorspace in order to facilitate local economic growth and address housing pressures whilst at the same time protecting the most valuable Green Belt land.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 942
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Bolson's Limited
Proposals in SO3 and S3 do not appear to apply to Bolsons.
Para 2.44 states there the reasons for the need for new allocations.
It seems odd to promote policies that result in the loss of a good purpose-built site. Surely it is more sustainable to maintain a good existing estate? NPPF promotes economic growth, employment and seeks to support existing business sectors and to minimise journey lengths for employment.
Bolsons Unit 64 has easy access to public transport. What suggested alternatives does the Council have in mind when they formulated these proposals?
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1106
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Childerditch Properties
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
We generally support the Councils aspirations to increase employment land for the borough. However the employment land figure is based on unsound and out of date employment prediction figures.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1135
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Highcross
Agent: Rapleys LLP
Policy S3 advises of the future requirement for additional employment land and that research has shown that there is currently on-going demand for business premises. Our clients site at Academy Place has not expereinced that and therefore we consider that the strategy should recognise that not all sites continue to be attractive to the market. Where sites are no longer suitable for employment, as in this case, as evidenced by long periods of vacancy and on-going marketing, then the policy should recognise that alternative uses, either through re-use or redevelopment should be acceptable to help meet plan requirements.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1170
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: S J & C M Norris
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
This representation has been submitted and sets out why land to the north of the A1023 (Shenfield) should be allocated for a hospitality/leisure use with the opportunity for Park and Ride as part of the emerging Local Plan.
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1278
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: S & J Padfield and Partners
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
The objective to provide for 5,400 additional jobs is supported. However, wording should be clarified as below.
- Update Policy S3 to reflect the fact that 5,400 jobs over a 15 year plan period will require a higher annual average rate of 360 jobs per annum.
- Update the wording of Policy S3 to indicate that allocated employment land is anticipated to make a significant contribution towards providing for the 5,400 new jobs but do not assign the 5,400 jobs entirely to B-use class developments.
See attached regarding land at Codham Hall Farm south of A127 (site 101A, former M25 works site)
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1510
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: John Grahame
The factory estate has been a problem for sometime because it has had a change of use from manufacturing to warehousing which has increased the amount of lorry traffic through the village day and night. The lorries are quite considerable in size and during the night do not adhere to the speed limit along Station Road therefore interrupting the sleep of the occupants in Station Road. Most of the occupants of West Horndon I believe would support the development of the factory estate for housing which would increase the number of dwellings within the village and traffic would decrease.
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1515
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: J.W.E Grahame
The factory estate has been a problem for the village for sometime because it has had a change of use from manufacturing to warehousing which has increased the amount of lorry traffic through the village day and night. The lorries are quite considerable in size and during the night do not adhere to the speed limit along Station Road. Most of the occupants of West Horndon I believe would support the development of the factory estate for housing which would increase the number of dwellings within the village and reduce traffic overall.
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1529
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Claire Hendle
Most of the occupants of West Horndon I believe would support the development of the factory estate for housing which would increase the number of dwellings within the village it would not swamp it and the number of lorries would decrease.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1712
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Mr Christopher Hart
With the destruction of the two West Horndon Industrial Estates in the Preferred Option, there would be de-minimis employment in West Horndon, with the BBC not having the ability to demand employment be created in West Horndon, irrespective of best intentions. Of West Horndon's working population, the average distance travelled to work is likely to be well over 10 miles, indeed predominantly into London. As such, it is felt the Preferred Option is contrary to this Policy when development could occur within walking distance of existing large employment centres, such as Brentwood and Shenfield.
See attachment
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1988
Received: 20/08/2013
Respondent: Mr. and Mr G. and S. Chislett
Number of people: 2
If the Industrial site is to be demolished for the new houses, what is going to happen to people that currently work there, some of them from West Horndon, they probably will not be able to relocate.
How does the Council plan to obtain the shortfall in rates from the Industrial Site when it is gone, our rates will inevitably need to increase to make up the deficit.
Letter
As a resident of West Horndon we are rather alarmed to learn of the proposals put forward by Brentwood Council. While we are fully aware that people have to live somewhere, and there does appear to be scope for development to the area West of Thorndon Avenue as depicted in your 'Site Allocation Maps' denoted by 'Area 037'. But I cannot see the justification for 1500 new houses in our small village, increasing the population by somewhere in the region of 3000 to 4000 or more.
What shops will they use, when all we have got is one News Agent, a small general store, two hair dressers, a little cake shop, a fireplace shop and last of all but not least a 'Massage Parlour'.
If the proposal is to build more shops and possibly a new school, where will all of these units be sited? What about the Doctors Surgery, we think we have the very best surgery in the Brentwood area, the existing surgery will be too small to cater for the proposed increase.
Also what will happen to our very dismal transport links, bus service to/from Brentwood/Lakeside/ Basildon, will all these be improved to help keep motorists out of their cars. Train service can also be improved.
The other strategic allocation sites 020 and 021, the two Industrial Estates, several matters arise here:-
1. The cost to demolish and prepare the site.
2. The number of personnel working there will lose their jobs, some from West Horndon. What will happen to them?
3. The loss of Business Rates when the units are gone.
4. Road access and egress to the new sites
5. Junction Station Road and A128 a roundabout will DEFINETLY be required, it's bad enough now.
I sincerely hope the criteria mentioned above will be given the utmost consideration so that we don't finally end up with a system that has more against it than for it.
Email
Sir,
With reference to the above proposal, I must stress my concern regarding the number of properties proposed to be built. Whilst I realise that some development will take place, I do not think it is sustainable to build the number of properties proposed.
There are a number of points I would like to put forward as follows :-
1. If the Industrial site is to be demolished for the new houses, what is going to happen to the people that currently work there, some of them from West Horndon, they probably will not be able to relocate.
2. How does the Council plan to obtain the shortfall in rates from the Industrial Site when it is gone, our rates will inevitably need to increase to make up the deficit.
3. What about the flooding risk, I sincerely hope the increased flooding risk will be fully and expertly investigated, and not just pushed aside as 'a wait and see what happens scenario', as it will then be too late. The village has been flooded several times in the past, most recently in 2012, this is a major concern, and needs to be urgently addressed, and not forgotten.
4. When the Industrial Site has gone the only thing in our favour is the reduced number of lorries speeding through the village, and the general congestion they have caused in the past.
5. We will instead have an increased number of private cars going through the village, and the intersection of Station Road and the A128 is an absolute nightmare, in the past I personally have say there for up to five or more minutes waiting for a break in the traffic when turning right to go towards Orsett. I wrote to Brentwood Council and Essex County Council many years ago about this problem, requesting a roundabout to be installed, I was told that a roundabout could not be installed because the A128 was a major A road, what nonsense was that I replied, there a number of roundabouts on the A1 and many other A roads, now there is even one at the intersection of A128 and Middleton Hall Lane. So I feel a roundabout will DEFINITELY be needed at Station Road and the A128 to avoid further accidents. Roads in the village will also need to be upgraded. As well as the pavements, these are atrocious.
6. What about our transport links, the local bus service is virtually non existent, even at present if there were more buses people would make full use of them and not use there cars, the railway service will be pushed to the limit and will be overcrowded, they are already overcrowded and with the new residents working in London and elsewhere using the railway, the situation will be worse, these most certainly will need to be improved.
7. Facilities in the village will also need to be improved, we will need better medical and educational facilities and also shops, these will not be sustainable if there is no improvement.
8. I think the proposed development of Metropolitan Green Belt Land is extremely ill-advised as this will set a dangerous precedent, if this is allowed to happen it will not be long before we will be merged with Thurrock and Greater London, do we really want this, do we really need this?
I sincerely hope the Council will take note of all the above notes and also the notes submitted by other residents and fully think out all the proposals before going ahead like a bull in a china shop and proceed Willy Nilly with what they plan irrespective of the thoughts and well being of others.