Comment

Representation ID: 15984

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

Proposed Amendment to Policy 5.1, criterion b - ECC supports reference to development having no significant impact on transport, but this should be widened to refer to impact on:

`....transport (highway safety, capacity and congestion)'

Comment

Representation ID: 15985

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

Criteria c. supported by ECC & consistant with NPPF. Policy should be expanded to have regard to the right location in respect of the current highway network and proposed improvements.
ECC proposes an amendment to the policy, which seeks to ensure the potential wider implications of the installation of new utility services in the vicinity of the highway network or proposed new highway network take account of the Highway Authority's land requirements, so as to not impede or add to the cost of the highway mitigation schemes.
`The location and route of new utility services in the vicinity of the highway network or proposed new highway network should take account of the Highway Authority's land requirements'.

Comment

Representation ID: 15986

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

criterion a) is identified twice, but is intended to be a single criterion.
Paragraph 6.18 - reference should be made to Transport Assessments being necessary for all major development proposals to assess the impact and identify mitigation of the proposals.

Comment

Representation ID: 15994

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

Unclear what this policy is seeking to achieve with regards highway junctions and rail stations. The policy identifies the following `aims', which need clarification. These aims are identified as `enhance a positive impression'; `understanding of the Borough's character' and distinctive and clear entry'.
Highway Junctions - identifies that local area landscaping should be prioritised, but this should not be to the detriment of highway safety or capacity, especially if mitigation is required to accommodate the planned growth.

Comment

Representation ID: 15995

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

Further clarification should be provided with regards the criteria for defining the locations as key gateways, and what role each location plays as a gateway to the borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 15998

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

Consider that, given the proximity of the site to Policy H10 (Basildon Borough New Draft Local Plan), both local authorities should be in discussion concerning the potential synergies between development, potential for shared evidence base, and the consideration of the cumulative impact on primary and secondary education, and early years and childcare provision, key highway junctions and the wider network. Essential that joint working between relevant partners is progressed to ensure that the appropriate economies of scale can be achieved.

Comment

Representation ID: 16000

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

ECC recommends that growth identified in the Basildon Local Plan (Policy H10) would require a minimum of a 2 forms of entry (420-place) primary school. The 2,500 dwellings identified in the Brentwood Local Plan at Dunton Hills Garden Village could require the provision of at least one large (31/2 forms of entry - 735-places), or more probably two smaller ( 1 x 2 forms of entry (420-places) and 1 x 11/2 form of entry (315-places) new primary schools. The precise requirement would be dependent on the housing mix agreed for the development. A further 150 primary school places would be required to accommodate the pupils generated by the 500 homes identified for West Horndon. Some of this additional demand could probably be accommodated by an expansion of West Horndon Primary School but some of the growth may need to be accommodated in the new primary schools on the Dunton Garden Village development.

Comment

Representation ID: 16003

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

ECC provided comments to the joint `Concept Consultation in 2015, and these comments remain pertinent. The proposal is at an early stage, but there is limited evidence and information available to comment on its appropriateness, including Strategic Green Belt Review; Transport modelling and highway impact assessments; Infrastructure requirements (including education/early years and childcare); Environmental issues (ie landscape impacts; surface water management).

Comment

Representation ID: 16005

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

Would seek early consultation regarding any proposal to consider any impacts on designated and non- designated heritage assets, as identified in the Historic Environment Record (HER).

Comment

Representation ID: 16006

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Essex County Council

In progressing any allocation further strategic and project level assessment of ecology and Country Parks will be necessary and should be in accordance with best-practice guidelines. In addition appropriate engagement with the Parks Services will need to be undertaken to inform any design of future assessment/mitigation studies for ecology and green infrastructure. ECC request further investigation into Enhancement Measures and ECC note that the strategic allocation is located between three living landscape areas which presents significant opportunities to establish a strategic framework to ensure the "concept" delivers a positive contribution to the local ecological network and habitat species.