Object

Representation ID: 30226

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC and S&J Padfield and Partners

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Whilst the caveat proposed within MM7, referring to the need to comply with legal tests (i.e. the CIL Regulations) is welcomed, the tying of the contributions to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is considered to be somewhat problematic as: a) the IDP to be a ‘live’ document and therefore subject to change; and
b) the IDP is not subject to a level of scrutiny to ensure that the contributions it demands are justified and viable, in the same way that a Local Plan or CIL Charging Schedule would be. Suggest reference to the IDP is moved to the supporting text.

Support

Representation ID: 30227

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC and S&J Padfield and Partners

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Welcome the reference to the need to comply with legal tests (i.e. the CIL Regulations). Welcome additional text regarding retrospective contribution to enable early delivery of certain strategic and necessary infrastructure in advance of all contributions having been collected from developments that will come forward later in the plan period, in order to support the level of growth planned.

Object

Representation ID: 30228

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC and S&J Padfield and Partners

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

MM22 should be subject to further modifications making clear that contributions to transport infrastructure will only be sought where they are directly related to development proposal in question, and necessary to make it acceptable in planning terms.

Support

Representation ID: 30229

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC and S&J Padfield and Partners

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Modifications to policy NE08 are proposed to make it clear that external lighting as part of proposed development will be supported provided inter alia it does not give rise to unacceptable impacts on night sky, or an unacceptable increase in sky glow. We agree that these modifications are necessary in order to make the BLP sound. This change is necessary to ensure the policy is not overly restrictive in terms of external lighting. As previously worded, a decision-maker could have inferred that almost anyexternal lighting would have been contrary to policy.

Object

Representation ID: 30234

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC and S&J Padfield and Partners

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Policy E11’s requirement for contribution towards EYCC from development at E11 is not justified. A demand for such a contribution is not considered capable of confirming to national policy or CIL Regulations on planning obligations. No residential development of the site is proposed or supported by proposed policy. Recent pre-application discussions with Essex County Council in respect of the proposed development of site E11 have confirmed that Essex County Council would not require a contribution to EYCC from employment development of the site.

Object

Representation ID: 30235

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC and S&J Padfield and Partners

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Unclear why the Council has changed its position with regards to the amendments to the site boundary and resultant further Green Belt release. Concerned that future decision makers could consider the areas now not proposed to be removed from the Green Belt not to meet the tests in paragraph 150 of the NPPF and therefore constitute inappropriate development;

Object

Representation ID: 30236

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC and S&J Padfield and Partners

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

- Policy should be 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;
- The proposed reference to J28 is not necessary to make the Plan sound, and therefore is not compliant with Sections 20(7B) and (7C) of the
Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. There is no evidence to suggest that development of the site would be unacceptable in planning terms without improvements to J28; or that contribution would be directly related to the development.

Object

Representation ID: 30237

Received: 01/12/2021

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC and S&J Padfield and Partners

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Policies Map: St Modwen proposed to remove additional land from the Green Belt to accommodate a new link road, access from the B186, and landscaping enhancements. BBC proposed to remove this additional land in Document F89. However, no modifications to the extent of alterations to the Green Belt are proposed in relation to E11 in the Policies Map. Unclear why the Council has changed its position with regards to the amendments to the site boundary and further Green Belt release. Concerned that future decision makers could consider the aforementioned areas not to meet NPPF paragraph 150 and constitute inappropriate development