Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Search representations
Results for Asphaltic Developments Ltd search
New searchSupport
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
S2: Amount and Distribution of Residential Development 2015-2030
Representation ID: 838
Received: 17/10/2013
Respondent: Asphaltic Developments Ltd
Agent: Rapleys LLP
The objective to "plan for housing that meets the needs of the Borough's population and contributes to creating inclusive, balanced, sustainable communities", is supported and welcomed. In addition, we generally support Policy S2, insofar as it confirms that provision will be needed to meet a housing requirement for the Borough of 3,500 new dwellings in the Plan period 2015 - 2030.
However, the working draft of the "Objectively Assessed Housing Needs Assessment" sets out c. 5,500 new dwellings are required in the plan period. In that regard, the Council needs to identify further sites to deliver that requirement.
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Policy CP2: Managing Growth
Representation ID: 839
Received: 17/10/2013
Respondent: Asphaltic Developments Ltd
Agent: Rapleys LLP
Policy CP2 is noted in that it confirms the locations for growth within the Borough, and that in selecting sites for allocation, or granting planning permission, the Council will have regard to, inter alia, areas where development should not take place (e.g. undeveloped Green Belt sites) and the need to ensure a flexible and responsive supply of land, and to prioritise the re-use of previously developed land.
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Policy DM23 Housing Land Allocations - Major Sites
Representation ID: 841
Received: 17/10/2013
Respondent: Asphaltic Developments Ltd
Agent: Rapleys LLP
Proposed allocations within Green Belt are noted, specifically Sow and Grow Nursery (010) and Ingatestone Garden Centre (128). It is noted that the allocations are made (as per the Draft Site Assessment supporting document) on the basis that it is considered they are brownfield land in the Green Belt. Furthermore, they are connected to or close to urban areas, providing sustainable urban extensions without using greenfield land. This approach is generally supported.
The suggested site, Brentwood Leisure Park, is similar and could come forward in the short to medium term, should existing uses become unviable.
See attached