Allocations: Schedule of modifications

The respondent generally supports this modification, however it is considered that it needs to be more prescriptive. The modification proposed states:
"One access/egress point on to Star Lane to serve these developments should be carefully considered at the planning application stage to avoid a prolification of access/egress roads along Star Lane".
The Council is currently at the "planning application stage" with respect to the first of the Great Wakering housing allocations to come forward. A planning application has been submitted for the southern section of allocation BFR1 on the former Brickworks site. As such, the Council is presently in a position to give "careful consideration" to the access /egress onto Star lane and ensure delivery of at least one of the required access points to site SER 9b, as required by the draft policy of the Plan.
The planning application layout submitted for the former Brickworks acknowledges the requirements of the plan policy text, as it provides an access road as prescribed, appropriately positioned as required, namely "to the north east corner of the southern section (former brickworks)"
It is evident by the submitted planning application that the southern section of BFR1 is to be delivered before the northern section. As such the applicant for the brickworks site has proposed what would appear to be a policy compliant layout with regard to access/egress onto Star Lane. However, the access road proposed does not appear on the submitted application plan to connect to the site's common boundary with site SER 9b. The applicant's application submission is silent on the applicant's intention to provide unfettered access to SER 9b. The submitted plans illustrate a small planted strip between the end of the proposed carriageway and the common site boundary with SER 9b.
The respondent is concerned that this strip is likely to become a ransom strip, which may jeopardise the delivery of SER 9b and as a result, the proper planning of the area. The Council is now in a position to ensure unfettered access is provided to SER 9b through the grant of planning permission. This has already been highlighted to the council through representations made in respect of the brickworks application. The modification proposed should therefore be amended to state that;-
"Unfettered access/egress to site SER 9b shall be provided as part of the development of the southern section of BFR 1 to ensure the proper delivery of the allocations as proposed".

The respondent generally supports this modification, however it is considered that it needs to be more prescriptive. The modification proposed states:
"One access/egress point on to Star Lane to serve these developments should be carefully considered at the planning application stage to avoid a prolification of access/egress roads along Star Lane".
The Council is currently at the "planning application stage" with respect to the first of the Great Wakering housing allocations to come forward. A planning application has been submitted for the southern section of allocation BFR1 on the former Brickworks site. As such, the Council is presently in a position to give "careful consideration" to the access /egress onto Star lane and ensure delivery of at least one of the required access points to site SER 9b, as required by the draft policy of the Plan.
The planning application layout submitted for the former Brickworks acknowledges the requirements of the plan policy text, as it provides an access road as prescribed, appropriately positioned as required, namely "to the north east corner of the southern section (former brickworks)"
It is evident by the submitted planning application that the southern section of BFR1 is to be delivered before the northern section. As such the applicant for the brickworks site has proposed what would appear to be a policy compliant layout with regard to access/egress onto Star Lane. However, the access road proposed does not appear on the submitted application plan to connect to the site's common boundary with site SER 9b. The applicant's application submission is silent on the applicant's intention to provide unfettered access to SER 9b. The submitted plans illustrate a small planted strip between the end of the proposed carriageway and the common site boundary with SER 9b.
The respondent is concerned that this strip is likely to become a ransom strip, which may jeopardise the delivery of SER 9b and as a result, the proper planning of the area. The Council is now in a position to ensure unfettered access is provided to SER 9b through the grant of planning permission. This has already been highlighted to the council through representations made in respect of the brickworks application. The modification proposed should therefore be amended to state that;-
"Unfettered access/egress to site SER 9b shall be provided as part of the development of the southern section of BFR 1 to ensure the proper delivery of the allocations as proposed".

The respondent generally supports this modification, however it is considered that it needs to be more prescriptive. The modification proposed states:
"One access/egress point on to Star Lane to serve these developments should be carefully considered at the planning application stage to avoid a prolification of access/egress roads along Star Lane".
The Council is currently at the "planning application stage" with respect to the first of the Great Wakering housing allocations to come forward. A planning application has been submitted for the southern section of allocation BFR1 on the former Brickworks site. As such, the Council is presently in a position to give "careful consideration" to the access /egress onto Star lane and ensure delivery of at least one of the required access points to site SER 9b, as required by the draft policy of the Plan.
The planning application layout submitted for the former Brickworks acknowledges the requirements of the plan policy text, as it provides an access road as prescribed, appropriately positioned as required, namely "to the north east corner of the southern section (former brickworks)"
It is evident by the submitted planning application that the southern section of BFR1 is to be delivered before the northern section. As such the applicant for the brickworks site has proposed what would appear to be a policy compliant layout with regard to access/egress onto Star Lane. However, the access road proposed does not appear on the submitted application plan to connect to the site's common boundary with site SER 9b. The applicant's application submission is silent on the applicant's intention to provide unfettered access to SER 9b. The submitted plans illustrate a small planted strip between the end of the proposed carriageway and the common site boundary with SER 9b.
The respondent is concerned that this strip is likely to become a ransom strip, which may jeopardise the delivery of SER 9b and as a result, the proper planning of the area. The Council is now in a position to ensure unfettered access is provided to SER 9b through the grant of planning permission. This has already been highlighted to the council through representations made in respect of the brickworks application. The modification proposed should therefore be amended to state that;-
"Unfettered access/egress to site SER 9b shall be provided as part of the development of the southern section of BFR 1 to ensure the proper delivery of the allocations as proposed".

The respondent generally supports this modification, however it is considered that it needs to be more prescriptive. The modification proposed states:
"One access/egress point on to Star Lane to serve these developments should be carefully considered at the planning application stage to avoid a prolification of access/egress roads along Star Lane".
The Council is currently at the "planning application stage" with respect to the first of the Great Wakering housing allocations to come forward. A planning application has been submitted for the southern section of allocation BFR1 on the former Brickworks site. As such, the Council is presently in a position to give "careful consideration" to the access /egress onto Star lane and ensure delivery of at least one of the required access points to site SER 9b, as required by the draft policy of the Plan.
The planning application layout submitted for the former Brickworks acknowledges the requirements of the plan policy text, as it provides an access road as prescribed, appropriately positioned as required, namely "to the north east corner of the southern section (former brickworks)"
It is evident by the submitted planning application that the southern section of BFR1 is to be delivered before the northern section. As such the applicant for the brickworks site has proposed what would appear to be a policy compliant layout with regard to access/egress onto Star Lane. However, the access road proposed does not appear on the submitted application plan to connect to the site's common boundary with site SER 9b. The applicant's application submission is silent on the applicant's intention to provide unfettered access to SER 9b. The submitted plans illustrate a small planted strip between the end of the proposed carriageway and the common site boundary with SER 9b.
The respondent is concerned that this strip is likely to become a ransom strip, which may jeopardise the delivery of SER 9b and as a result, the proper planning of the area. The Council is now in a position to ensure unfettered access is provided to SER 9b through the grant of planning permission. This has already been highlighted to the council through representations made in respect of the brickworks application. The modification proposed should therefore be amended to state that;-
"Unfettered access/egress to site SER 9b shall be provided as part of the development of the southern section of BFR 1 to ensure the proper delivery of the allocations as proposed".

The respondent supports the need for a master plan to be prepared prior to the submission of a planning application. However, for the master plan to have any lasting status, it should be submitted as part of an outline planning application, which could also include integration with the proposed employment site NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) and a defined site boundary for the local wildlife site.
Therefore, the minor modification proposed should also include text, which requires the master plan to be submitted that deals with the integration of the various sites including the wildlife site and its boundaries and extent and should form part of outline planning application, otherwise any master plan submitted for the area will lack status in the long term.

It is not clear why the amended text requires the deletion of "north and" from this paragraph. The paragraph is a statement of fact and there are presently trees and hedgerows to the north and west of NEL 2 (previously NEL 3). There are also some trees and hedgerows to the east of the proposed allocation

The Inspector's Interim Report confirms that the original proposal for allocation NEL 3 was unsound. The Inspector recommends a modification, which reflects the broad location of Option E19. The respondent anticipated the Inspector's conclusions and put forward Master Plan Option 3 with his representations, which broadly reflects Option E19. There is a need to be clear as to how NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) will be accessed as detailed in representations made in response to MM93, 94, 95 &AM1. It is also the case that the Inspector draws the Councils attention in his interim report (para 13) that the Council may with to consider the content and implications of paragraph 5.1 of the Plan. In doing so, the Inspector is referring to the unlikely scenario of the displaced users on BFR1 (north) finding their way onto NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) . It is acknowledged that paragraph 5.1 of the Plan advises that the new employment allocations are not only to provide for displaced uses from the BFR sites, but also to accommodate new employments uses. The suggested modification to paragraph 5.54 suggests as drafted that NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) shall only provide for displaced uses from BFR1 (north), which is not the intention and certainly not likely to be the case in reality. The Council accept that there are likely to be difficulties in controlling where existing BFR users might relocate to and that there will be no synergy, unless site's like NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) are able to be approved as separate entities as new employment allocations where any B1, B2 or B8 user might choose to locate. Any proscriptive requirements on the potential occupiers on the NEL sites, will render them commercially unviable and thus jeopardise the proper delivery of the Plan.
MM 89 needs to be amended to make it clear that NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) is not exclusive to existing occupiers of BFR1 (north) and that it shall be treated simply as a new employment allocation.

The Inspector's Interim Report confirms that the original proposal for allocation NEL 3 was unsound. The Inspector recommends a modification, which reflects the broad location of Option E19. The respondent anticipated the Inspector's conclusions and put forward Master Plan Option 3 with his representations, which broadly reflects Option E19. There is a need to be clear as to how NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) will be accessed as detailed in representations made in response to MM93, 94, 95 &AM1. It is also the case that the Inspector draws the Councils attention in his interim report (para 13) that the Council may with to consider the content and implications of paragraph 5.1 of the Plan. In doing so, the Inspector is referring to the unlikely scenario of the displaced users on BFR1 (north) finding their way onto NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) . It is acknowledged that paragraph 5.1 of the Plan advises that the new employment allocations are not only to provide for displaced uses from the BFR sites, but also to accommodate new employments uses. The suggested modification to paragraph 5.54 suggests as drafted that NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) shall only provide for displaced uses from BFR1 (north), which is not the intention and certainly not likely to be the case in reality. The Council accept that there are likely to be difficulties in controlling where existing BFR users might relocate to and that there will be no synergy, unless site's like NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) are able to be approved as separate entities as new employment allocations where any B1, B2 or B8 user might choose to locate. Any proscriptive requirements on the potential occupiers on the NEL sites, will render them commercially unviable and thus jeopardise the proper delivery of the Plan.
The Inspector's Interim Report confirms that the original proposal for allocation NEL 3 was unsound. The Inspector recommends a modification, which reflects the broad location of Option E19. The respondent anticipated the Inspector's conclusions and put forward Master Plan Option 3 with his representations, which broadly reflects Option E19. There is a need to be clear as to how NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) will be accessed as detailed in representations made in response to MM93, 94, 95 &AM1. It is also the case that the Inspector draws the Councils attention in his interim report (para 13) that the Council may with to consider the content and implications of paragraph 5.1 of the Plan. In doing so, the Inspector is referring to the unlikely scenario of the displaced users on BFR1 (north) finding their way onto NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) . It is acknowledged that paragraph 5.1 of the Plan advises that the new employment allocations are not only to provide for displaced uses from the BFR sites, but also to accommodate new employments uses. The suggested modification to paragraph 5.54 suggests as drafted that NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) shall only provide for displaced uses from BFR1 (north), which is not the intention and certainly not likely to be the case in reality. The Council accept that there are likely to be difficulties in controlling where existing BFR users might relocate to and that there will be no synergy, unless site's like NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) are able to be approved as separate entities as new employment allocations where any B1, B2 or B8 user might choose to locate. Any proscriptive requirements on the potential occupiers on the NEL sites, will render them commercially unviable and thus jeopardise the proper delivery of the Plan.
MM 89 needs to be amended to make it clear that NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) is not exclusive to existing occupiers of BFR1 (north) and that it shall be treated simply as a new employment allocation.

The new sentence to be added to this paragraph needs to include direction, as to the proposed vehicular access to be provided to site NEL 2(previously NEL 3). The Plan requires a Landscaped Green Buffer to be provided the north, south and east of NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) , which is achievable. The buffer to the north is required to separate the new residential development planed for BFR1 and the employment allocation NEL 2 (previously NEL 3). This buffer would need to be provided directly south of the BFR1 development, over the existing access/public footpath to the wildlife site. There is no room to provide an upgraded vehicular access to NEL 2 (previously NEL 3) over the existing road, as well as providing the Landscaped Green Buffer of an appropriate width to combat amenity issues. A new access over the old would also conflict with the requirements of MM94 Page 103 para 5.61, as heavy lorries accessing the employment land would run close to the residential boundaries of BFR1, creating an amenity conflict. The text needs to be specific to guide development, advising that the allocation for NEL 2 shall be served by a single access/egress onto Star Lane, to be sited south of a landscaped buffer of at least 10 metres, between BFR1 and NEL 2. The route of the footpath to the wildlife site could remain within the buffer land.

The text needs to be specific to guide development, advising that the allocation for NEL 2 shall be served by a single access/egress onto Star Lane, to be sited south of a landscaped buffer of at least 10 metres, between BFR1 and NEL 2. The route of the footpath to the wildlife site could remain within the buffer land.