Chapter 10 Mixed Policies 2020.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Schedule of Representations to the Pre-Submission Local Plan Consultation Chapter 10 – Mixed policies Contents H09, HO10, HO12, HO18, HO19 ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 HO13, HO14, HO15, HO16, HO17, HO20, HO21, HO22, HO32 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 HO23, HO24, HO25, HO26, HO27, HO28, HO29, HO30, HO31 ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 65 1 Questions 1a. To which part of the Pre-Submission Local Plan does this representation relate? 1b. What is the document reference? 2a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be legally compliant? 2b. If you responded no, please provide an explanation below 3a. Do you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to be sound? 3b. If you consider the Pre-Submission Local Plan to not be sound, please select which test(s) of soundness this relates to? 3c. Please provide an explanation below 4. Please set out the modification(s) you consider necessary to make the Pre-Submission Local Plan legally compliant and/or sound, including any revised wording. 5. If your representation is seeking a modification, do you consider it necessary to participate at the oral part of the examination? 6. If you wish to participate at the oral part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary: Consultee Agent Q2 Q3 ID ID, name, ID, name, Q1a Q1b Q2b – Legal compliance comments Q3b Q3c – Soundness comments Q4 Q5 Q6 a a Council’s response organisation organisation H09, HO10, HO12, HO18, HO19 HO9 - Land at West Benfleet is adjacent to the A130 and borders with Basildon The Council notes the Borough. The Pre Submission Local Plan allocates the site for residential deliverability issue identified in purposes to deliver: this representation from Basildon Borough Council, especially as it relates to two sites on the • 850 new homes; boundary with Basildon Borough. • Nursery and primary school; The Council appreciates that • Medical facilities; and Basildon Borough Council is • Residential care home. seeking to avoid development in this part of Castle Point having HO19 - Land at Glebelands, Thundersley is adjacent to the A130 and the negative cross boundary impacts. boundary with Basildon Borough. The Pre Submission Local Plan allocates the 1244973 To this end the Council has site for residential purposes to deliver up to 155 new homes. No, I do not Lisa reviewed the IDP and viability HO9 wish to Richardson Policy 225 and participate at evidence in light of this Basildon number Infrastructure HO19 the oral representation, and shared this Borough examination evidence with Basildon Borough Council The Pre Submission Local Plan sets out that the principal access to HO9 would Council, to ensure that it be from the A130 Canvey Way, comprising a roundabout junction and a addresses the concerns raised segregated northbound carriageway for existing traffic, which will be provided around infrastructure delivery. before the new homes are occupied. The installation of a roundabout will be dependent on the outcomes of a transport modelling exercise, to determine With regard to ensuring that the impact of the strategic route network and any mitigations required, developments HO9 and HO19 are including increased capacity on the A130 northwards of the roundabout to planned in way which optimises Sadlers Farm and improvements to the slip road from Canvey Way to A13. cross-boundary benefits, the Council proposes in both instance No specific requirements are set for new transport infrastructure for HO19. A to take a master planned contribution towards a new and extended bus service is required. approach. This will provide the opportunity for such cross- 2 Consultee Agent Q2 Q3 ID ID, name, ID, name, Q1a Q1b Q2b – Legal compliance comments Q3b Q3c – Soundness comments Q4 Q5 Q6 a a Council’s response organisation organisation The Infrastructure Delivery Plan indicates that all the costs of a new boundary benefits to be identified roundabout on the A130 will be met by S106 developer contributions. For the and incorporated into the detailed additional carriageway capacity on the A130 Canvey Way, there is a small plans for these sites. shortfall and delivery is dependent on S106 developer contributions from four separate sites. It is unclear if these sites are viable including all S106 The Council does however have contributions. some reservations with regard the preparation of an A130 landscape The Infrastructure Delivery Plan indicates that education provision for both strategy at this time. Combined, HO9 and HO19 will be through the provision of a new primary school on H09 the Castle Point Local Plan and and expansion of the Deanes Secondary School The Infrastructure Delivery Basildon Local Plan leaves a clear Plan indicates that only 34.01% of the cost associated with the expansion of gap between settlements, the Deanes Secondary School will be met by H09 with the remaining cost being negating the need for such a met by contributions from 14 additional housing allocations. There is a risk that Castle Point Borough Council may be unable to deliver this infrastructure in a strategy from a landscape timely manner as it is dependent on all 15 housing allocations being delivered perspective. It is noted that a in line with the housing trajectory. neighbourhood plan is being prepared by Bowers Gifford and BBC wishes to highlight the importance of identifying how the additional North Benfleet Parish Council infrastructure required to support the growth allocated in the Pre Submission which could impact on this gap. Local Plan will be funded. Failure to deliver the required infrastructure will However, it is for that plan to negatively impact growth in neighbouring authorities, including Basildon. justify any such impacts. Consequently, Basildon Borough Council would emphasise to Castle Point Borough Council the importance of ensuring that the delivery of infrastructure that is essential to delivering growth is prioritised. Strategic Gap Both H09 and HO19 are located adjacent to the border with Basildon Borough. The Basildon Borough Revised Publication Local Plan allocates Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet Neighbourhood Area for the delivery of 1,350 dwellings to be delivered through a Neighbourhood Plan. BBC supports Castle Point Borough Council’s conclusion that the A130 provides a robust barrier between South and North Benfleet, preventing the neighbouring towns from merging into each other. However collaborative working will maximise opportunities to deliver high quality communities in this area by: • Ensuring communities remain separate but have good connectivity, and enhancing opportunities for sustainable transport. • Delivering shared infrastructure including facilities for community and leisure use. • Maximising open space provision by making best use of land. BBC therefore, seeks a commitment from Castle Point Borough Council to amend the Pre Submission Local Plan to include a commitment to working together with Basildon Borough, to develop a cross boundary A130 Landscape Strategy to support the strategic importance this area has in preventing coalescence of settlements and enhancing its landscape, recreation and movement roles. Castle Point Local Plan 27 Dec 2019 The Council needs to get a grip CP has submitted two previous Comments on the Local Plan in connection with housing expansion and traffic of the existing problems not plans to the Secretary of State for Positively congestion: just create something even Examination in Public. In both prepared I was under the impression that the house expansion proposals were rejected worse. The only area which Yes, I wish to 1239392 9 & 10 cases these sought to maintain Paragraph two years ago with exception of possible building in the NW area near will minimize is NW participate at It is not necessary, only 17 Robert Housin Yes No the extent of the Green Belt and number Justified theA130/A127 intersection. There is no room for more housing and traffic flow Thundersley with access from the oral if I can contribute did not make enough provision for Saltings g A130/A127. within the confines of the existing living area. I suppose the Government has examination homes. These were withdrawn Effective put pressure on Castle Point to revisit the plan. The reason for rejection is the and found to fail, respectively. The same today, or worse, a revisit of the old plan does not remove the problems. Council need to get out of the Council is therefore of the view The facts have not changed and the reason for dismissing this plan is the same. office and examine the current 3 Consultee Agent Q2 Q3 ID ID, name, ID, name, Q1a Q1b Q2b – Legal compliance comments Q3b Q3c – Soundness comments Q4 Q5 Q6 a a Council’s response