Comment

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 720

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: S Walsh and Sons Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Whilst the Company supports the identification of the former M25 work site as a new business park, it questions whether this site should be proposed to such an extent when there are existing lawful previously developed sites, such as at East Horndon Business Park suitable and available for such a use. The Company also questions the wording within paragraph 3.15 of the justification of the policy. There is a strong argument to reduce the extent of development allocated and allow for other provision. In doing so,this will increase the choice of employment sites contributing to the economic prosperity of Brentwood.

Support

Representation ID: 721

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: S Walsh and Sons Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

S Walsh & Sons Ltd generally supports the wording of the Policy, which it considers to be NPPF compliant.

Support

Representation ID: 722

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: S Walsh and Sons Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

S Walsh & Sons Ltd generally supports the objectives underlying the Policy which it generally considers to be NPPF compliant.
The Company does, however, request that their site at East Horndon Business Park is considered as a site allocated for general employment, either as existing or as a preferred allocation.

Comment

Representation ID: 3374

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: S Walsh and Sons Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

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'.