6.9

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Support

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 16107

Received: 29/10/2009

Respondent: Rochford & District Chamber of Trade & Commerce

Representation Summary:

Support, but express the following reservations:

The word "restrictive" should be removed and the Council should work more with landowners and the rural economy to support and promote more employment. This has been a growth area in recent years and could be better promoted to creating additional rural employment

Full text:

Support, but express the following reservations:

The word "restrictive" should be removed and the Council should work more with landowners and the rural economy to support and promote more employment. This has been a growth area in recent years and could be better promoted to creating additional rural employment

Support

Core Strategy Submission Document

Representation ID: 16377

Received: 22/10/2009

Respondent: Aber Ltd

Agent: Colliers International

Representation Summary:

Agree that the minimum amount of Green Belt is allocated to meet the District's housing need, and that the extensions to the residential envelope are in sustainable locations, and prevent the coalescence of settlements.

In addition, some Green Belt land is less worthy of continued protection, as it does not necessary contribute as strongly to the reasons for maintaining it as Green Belt.

It is interesting to note that whilst the Council will continue a restrictive policy towards employment growth in the Green Belt; this appears to contradict Policy ED4 that advises that certain locations will be released to accommodate new employment sites to compensate for the loss of locations in the existing settlements.

Full text:

Agree that the minimum amount of Green Belt is allocated to meet the District's housing need, and that the extensions to the residential envelope are in sustainable locations, and prevent the coalescence of settlements.

In addition, some Green Belt land is less worthy of continued protection, as it does not necessary contribute as strongly to the reasons for maintaining it as Green Belt.

It is interesting to note that whilst the Council will continue a restrictive policy towards employment growth in the Green Belt; this appears to contradict Policy ED4 that advises that certain locations will be released to accommodate new employment sites to compensate for the loss of locations in the existing settlements.