Site Selection
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 13163
Received: 25/02/2016
Respondent: Ms Linda Rodrigues
We should be using these irreplaceable green spaces, playing fields more, not destroying them forever.
We should be using these irreplaceable green spaces, playing fields more, not destroying them forever.
I agree wholeheartedly with all the objections raised to the proposed building between St Andrews Place, Bishops Walk and Hogarth School. Including - narrow roads creating difficult access for emergency vehicles, lack of pavements and those in poor condition, overcrowding of schools and GP Surgeries. Add to this parking!
Moreover I feel it totally fool hardy to build on sportsfields.
With doctors and indeed the Government telling us that children and young people do not get enough exercise, resulting in overweight and diabetes, we should be using these irreplaceable green spaces more, destroying them forever!
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 13172
Received: 25/02/2016
Respondent: Mrs Lisa Glassock
Shopping in Shenfield again is impossible with limited parking and local schools are over subscribed, with classes so full even local children are not receiving places. I cannot see how Shenfield will cope with the extra traffic and population. More houses mean you will need more schools. doctors, parking, facilities and larger roads to take the traffic impact.
The traffic around Shenfield, especially Priests Lane and Chelmsford Road every morning is at a standstill - it makes getting anywhere by car a nightmare - so my family walked to school. Recently my son was knocked down by a driver racing the lights because of the traffic, even though the green man was flashing on Chelmsford Road.
Shopping in Shenfield again is impossible with limited parking and local schools are over subscribed, with classes so full even local children are not receiving places. I cannot see how Shenfield will cope with the extra traffic and population. More houses mean you will need more schools. doctors, parking, facilities and larger roads to take the traffic impact.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 13300
Received: 10/03/2016
Respondent: Mrs Fiona Trott
The site is in the Green Belt (but not a specal landscape area) and therefore comes within the fourth tier of the Council's sequential approach to sustainable land use. This tier allows for limited greenfield sites in the Green Belt which comprise urban extensions within reach of services and infrastructure and with defensible boundaries. The site satisfies all these criteria.
The site is in the Green Belt (but not a specal landscape area) and therefore comes within the fourth tier of the Council's sequential approach to sustainable land use. This tier allows for limited greenfield sites in the Green Belt which comprise urban extensions within reach of services and infrastructure and with defensible boundaries. The site satisfies all these criteria.
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 13541
Received: 22/03/2016
Respondent: Mr Timothy Webb
- Green Belt should be treated as irrevocably sacrosancts
- No new building should be permitted in rural/Green Belt locations - including on "brownfield" sites therein since this causes hideous impairment of the landscape viewable from many angles over considerable distance
- Any compelling/imperative residential development should take place exclusively on "brownfield" sites such as redundant/obsolete industrial estates, eg. Water Way, West Horndon
- Any redundant/unoccupied offices and shops could be converted to residential use
- All flora and fauna should be fully safeguarded at all times, in all circumstances, in all locations.
- Policy should be determined according to the views/opinions/wishes of the residents, if necessary by holding a legally binding democratic referendum, and not by Central Government dictate
- The Draft Plan only addresses "supply" and ignores "demands". The overwhelming problem is over-population - neither the world as a whole, the UK, nor Brentwood Borough can absorb or accomodate ever increasing population
- Any building should only be undertaken in the event of demonstratable need and not to satisfy pre-determined quotas
- In any case the Green Belt should be treated as irrevocably sacrosancts - in accordance with the original intentions of its founders
- No new building whatsoever should be permitted in rural/Green Belt locations - including on "brownfield" sites therein since this causes hideous impairment of the landscape viewable from many angles over considerable distance - as in Trueloves Lane
- Any compelling/imperative residential development should take place exclusively on "brownfield" sites such as redundant/obsolete industrial estates, eg. Water Way, West Horndon
- Any redundant/unoccupied offices and shops could be converted to residential use
- Town centre locations such as the Baytree Centre should be prioritised.
- Wherever possible, existing buildings (eg. shops) could be extended upwards with additional storeys to provide flats, residential accomodation
- Development/destruction/ruination of (inter alia) Officers Meadow should be eschewed in order to preserve green fields between existing communities
- The genuine concerns of existing residents should at all times take priority over the vested interests of developers
- All flora and fauna should be fully safeguarded at all times, in all circumstances, in all locations.
Support
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 13699
Received: 23/03/2016
Respondent: Mr Stephen Goulding
I agree with the sites selected
I agree with the sites selected
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 13762
Received: 30/03/2016
Respondent: Ms Elizabeth Rouse
The number of houses proposed in most sites (eg the site of Priests Lane) seems to have been identified without ANY consideration of infrastructure. Eg water, mains & supply; GPs; school places; roads, etc.
See attached for full response.
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 13925
Received: 07/04/2016
Respondent: Mr Deniel Cuthbert
Agree with your decision to keep the greenbelt land to the north of Hatch Road off your primary development list. Wildlife would be affected which would include breeding buzzards, deer, bats, newts and fieldfares. The boundaries to development are not strong. The area is criss-crossed with footpaths, but if land designated as greenbelt can be developed then a footpath won't stop further development. Shame to develop land before an archaeological study of pilgrims places of rest could be undertaken given it's Christian heritage. Development vastly change character of the site. Land tended, but is countryside not urban, mixed use or industrial. Houses reduce the countryside. A fundamental change. Question of amenity. Sandpit Lane not suitable as a major thoroughfare, although it is being used as such. Traffic lights at Wigley Bush Lane takes 10 minutes to get through, this is often preferable to trying to get through Brentwood. The only directions able to cope with more traffic at busier times (i.e. at times convenient to peoples way of life) from Pilgrim's Hatch is Ongar or Doddinghurst. Neither of those though have amenities to spare. I applaud your decision not to develop on the land to the north of Hatch Road.
I just wanted to send you a brief note to say that I agree with your decision to keep the greenbelt land to the north of Hatch Road off your primary development list. There is a considerable amount of wildlife that would be affected which would include breeding buzzards, deer, bats, newts and fieldfares. The boundaries to development are not strong. The area is criss-crossed with footpaths, but if land designated as greenbelt can be developed then a footpath won't stop further development. It would be shame also to develop land before an archaeological study of the pilgrims places of rest could be undertaken given it's Christian heritage. Development would vastly change the character of the site. The land is tended, but it is countryside, not urban, mixed use or industrial. Adding houses will reduce the countryside. This is a fundamental change. Lastly, there is the question of amenity. Sandpit Lane is not suitable as a major thoroughfare, although it is being used as such. The traffic lights at Wigley Bush Lane can take 10 minutes to get through, however this is often preferable to trying to get through Brentwood. The only directions able to cope with more traffic at busier times (i.e. at times convenient to peoples way of life) from Pilgrim's Hatch is Ongar or Doddinghurst. Neither of those though have amenities to spare. All in then, I applaud your decision not to develop on the land to the north of Hatch Road.
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14071
Received: 20/03/2016
Respondent: Mr Benjamin Stapley
Site selection of Priests Lane conflicts with the following:
Para 6.18 - Priest Lane is very narrow in places with provision of pavements on one side only. The need to cross the road multiple times when walking from Shenfield to Brentwood is a significant hazard. Extra traffic using this section of Priests Lane will result in accidents with pedestrians and road users due to the road / pavement arrangement.
Para 6.18 - The Priest Lane infrastructure is already under significant stress through volume of traffic and physically could not cope with the implied number of extra cars using Priests Lane to access site 044 and 178. This is a congestion and a safety issue.
Priests Lane has no public transport. It's development would be directly at odds with paragraph 10.7 (and 10.6).
Development of valuable open greenfield space.
I object specifically to the following:
Section 7
Paragraph 7.29 - Site Selection
Sites 044 & 178 - Land at Priests Lane, Brentwood
Reasons are as follows:
1. Safety of road users (paragraph 6.18)
The Priest Lane infrastructure is already under significant stress through volume of traffic and physically could not cope with the implied number of extra cars (residents plus visitors) using Priests Lane to access site 044 and 178. This is a congestion (Middleton Hall Lane but also Friars Avenue/Hutton Rd junction) and a safety issue. By way of example, due to the bends in the road I am already unable to exit my driveway safely (in a car or as a pedestrian on foot) due to the persistent streams of traffic and poor visibility. Many residents face this problem hence I see an increased risk of accidents were traffic volumes to increase.
2. Safety of pedestrians (paragraph 6.18)
Priest Lane is very narrow in places with provision of pavements on one side only. The need to cross the road multiple times when walking from Shenfield to Brentwood is a significant hazard. By way of example, we already feel extremely vulnerable when walking along the narrow sections where passing cars are no more than inches from pedestrians. In particular, the sharp bend by St Andrews Close is a key (and unsafe) crossing point where one pavement ends and one begins on opposite sides of the road. Extra traffic using this section of Priests Lane (and in particular St Andrews Close) will result in accidents with pedestrians and road users due to the road / pavement arrangement.
3. Provision of parking (paragraph 6.18 and 10.11)
The development on Priests Lane would not conform to policies 6.3 or 10.2 (paragraphs 6.18 and 10.11). Cars already park directly on Priests Lane, including by mounting the pavements in narrow places where only one pavement exists, particularly on the section of Priests Lane before Friars Avenue. This provides a significant impediment to the flow of traffic and is unsafe for pedestrians. My wife is currently pregnant and regularly has to walk in the middle of the road to circumnavigate these cars. This illustrates how parking is already insufficient and cannot cope with current residential overflow requirements.
4. Lack of public or sustainable transport options transport (council policy 7.3 and 10.1)
Priests Lane has no public transport. It's development would be directly at odds with paragraph 10.7 (and 10.6). It is clearly too narrow in places to become a bus route. It is also too narrow to support a cycle lane. It therefore clearly cannot support any development which approaches anywhere near the proposed 130 dwellings, as per the recommended density levels set out in Council Policy 7.3. This level of housing density is also not in keeping with the existing properties and density of the area.
Of particular note, given the lack of public transport options and walking distance of over 20 minutes to Shenfield or Brentwood railway stations, new residents would be encouraged to drive (or be driven) to transport hubs, particularly Shenfield station. The impact on congestion and safety at key rush hour periods would therefore be exponentially large.
5. Development of valuable open greenfield space
This is one of the last remaining open spaces and future generations should not be deprived of the flexibility to turn it over to alternative uses, such as for recreation or wildlife, and for the provision of a healthy environment. An unsustainably dense residential development is at odds with policies 9.1 and 9.2.
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14275
Received: 11/04/2016
Respondent: Zada Capital
By providing new homes throughout the Borough, including sites on the edge of villages or within easy walking distance, the criteria as set down by the government and the SHMA would be met. How does the Council propose to meet the Borough's housing need by building over 40% of new homes along the A127 and at the same time maintain stringent planning policies?
An integrated housing approach throughout the Borough would meet the needs identified in the SHMA (housing for holder people, concealed households), that the current approach fails to do and as a result will alienate families.
See attached.
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14472
Received: 18/04/2016
Respondent: Asphaltic Developments Ltd
Agent: Rapleys LLP
Given the Council's reliance on greenfield urban extensions in Green Belt it is considered that more sustainable sites which do not have significantly greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt such as our clients site [Brentwood Leisure Park at Warley Gap] should be considered as potential sites for housing development (in line with Policy 9.11), in addition to the proposed allocations in the Green Belt, such as sites no. 010 and 128, which are brownfield land in the Green Belt that are connected to or close to urban areas.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 14536
Received: 19/04/2016
Respondent: Amanda Burton
* The proposed site is greenbelt. We should not build on greenbelt. It is an invaluable asset for our future generation and urban sprawl must not be allowed.
* Greenbelt can only be built on in exceptional circumstances. Circumstances regarding over population from another area are not valid.
* The greenbelt protects London both from flood and acts as a lung for clean air.
* The proposed site has already got a flood problem.
I OBJECT TO THIS PLAN ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:-
* The proposed site is greenbelt. We should not build on greenbelt. It is an invaluable asset for our future generation and urban sprawl must not be allowed.
* It is not proven that we need housing for this many people (Local) being operative word/name.
* We do not have schools , doctors, hospital facilities to cope.
* Local hospital is on Black Alert most of the time. With no extra funding to be able to cope with this ludicrous development.
* Our local roads are congested already causing both noise and air pollution.
* Our water drainage goes back to Victorian times therefore as much greenbelt as we can keep is advisable to soak up excess water.
* The greenbelt protects London both from flood and acts as a lung for clean air.
* The proposed site has already got a flood problem.
* The original consultation was shamble so is not fit for purpose, consequent re-arrangements regarding Basildon and Brentwood that have been made with out due notification making the outcomes even more erroneous in law. Changing major decisions half way through already flawed process.
* Greenbelt can only be built on in exceptional circumstances. Circumstances regarding over population from another area are not valid.
* The entire demographic will change if we come out of EU and do not take all and sundry from Europe when free movement may be irradiated.
* Road Infrastructure is insufficient, further road building will cause more pollution.
* The A127 is overcrowded and is the only road leading to the east .
* As a public Governor or Basildon hospital I can safely say the hospital is at breaking point and already has major financial problems and over subscription problems.
Support
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 15004
Received: 27/04/2016
Respondent: Mrs Patricia Lamputt
I am writing to put forward my land Title number: EX640944 Three Oaks Meadow for hte future Brentwood Development Plan. The land is nicely located central in Hutton and also adjoining an established residential property 5 Hare Hall, and is opposite existing residential estates. It is easy access direct from Hanging Hill lane with public transport and accessible to all amenities: i.e. local schools, Shenfield Satin, Brentwood Town and Motorways. Site map and land registry details provided.
See attachments
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 15376
Received: 06/05/2016
Respondent: Maylands Green Estate Co. Ltd
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Of the five sites that have been identified for release from the Green Belt, site 079A is considered to have a 'Low-Moderate' assessment rating, sites 022, 023 and 032, 087, 235 are considered to have a 'Moderate' racing, whilst 034 has a 'Moderate-High' rating. A 'Moderate' rating is defined as being where "development of the site will moderately affect the site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt" and where either: -
- Three, or all, Green Belt Purposes is assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- One Purpose of the Green Belt is assessed to a High Level and at least two Purposes are assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- Two Purposes are assessed to a High Level and the other two Purposes limited to a Low level."
Given that the Assessment also lists 50 sites that are either within the 'Low-Moderate' or the 'Low' assessment rating, the Council has failed to take into account their own Evidence Base in identifying sites and when informing their Local Plan strategy. As a result, it is considered that the Local Plan, as it stands, is unsound.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 15395
Received: 06/05/2016
Respondent: Robert Mulholland & Co Ltd
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Of the five sites that have been identified for release from the Green Belt, site 079A is considered to have a 'Low-Moderate' assessment rating, sites 022, 023 and 032, 087, 235 are considered to have a 'Moderate' racing, whilst 034 has a 'Moderate-High' rating. A 'Moderate' rating is defined as being where "development of the site will moderately affect the site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt" and where either: -
- Three, or all, Green Belt Purposes is assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- One Purpose of the Green Belt is assessed to a High Level and at least two Purposes are assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- Two Purposes are assessed to a High Level and the other two Purposes limited to a Low level."
Given that the Assessment also lists 50 sites that are either within the 'Low-Moderate' or the 'Low' assessment rating, the Council has failed to take into account their own Evidence Base in identifying sites and when informing their Local Plan strategy. As a result, it is considered that the Local Plan, as it stands, is unsound.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 15501
Received: 09/05/2016
Respondent: Mr Richard Lunnon
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Of the five sites that have been identified for release from the Green Belt, site 079A is considered to have a 'Low-Moderate' assessment rating, sites 022, 023 and 032, 087, 235 are considered to have a 'Moderate' racing, whilst 034 has a 'Moderate-High' rating. A 'Moderate' rating is defined as being where "development of the site will moderately affect the site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt" and where either: -
- Three, or all, Green Belt Purposes is assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- One Purpose of the Green Belt is assessed to a High Level and at least two Purposes are assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- Two Purposes are assessed to a High Level and the other two Purposes limited to a Low level."
Given that the Assessment also lists 50 sites that are either within the 'Low-Moderate' or the 'Low' assessment rating, the Council has failed to take into account their own Evidence Base in identifying sites and when informing their Local Plan strategy. As a result, it is considered that the Local Plan, as it stands, is unsound.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 15587
Received: 10/05/2016
Respondent: Mr Lee O'Connor
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Of the five sites that have been identified for release from the Green Belt, site 079A is considered to have a 'Low-Moderate' assessment rating, sites 022, 023 and 032, 087, 235 are considered to have a 'Moderate' racing, whilst 034 has a 'Moderate-High' rating. A 'Moderate' rating is defined as being where "development of the site will moderately affect the site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt" and where either: -
- Three, or all, Green Belt Purposes is assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- One Purpose of the Green Belt is assessed to a High Level and at least two Purposes are assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- Two Purposes are assessed to a High Level and the other two Purposes limited to a Low level."
Given that the Assessment also lists 50 sites that are either within the 'Low-Moderate' or the 'Low' assessment rating, the Council has failed to take into account their own Evidence Base in identifying sites and when informing their Local Plan strategy. As a result, it is considered that the Local Plan, as it stands, is unsound.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 15664
Received: 10/05/2016
Respondent: Tony Hollioake
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Of the five sites that have been identified for release from the Green Belt, site 079A is considered to have a 'Low-Moderate' assessment rating, sites 022, 023 and 032, 087, 235 are considered to have a 'Moderate' racing, whilst 034 has a 'Moderate-High' rating. A 'Moderate' rating is defined as being where "development of the site will moderately affect the site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt" and where either: -
- Three, or all, Green Belt Purposes is assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- One Purpose of the Green Belt is assessed to a High Level and at least two Purposes are assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- Two Purposes are assessed to a High Level and the other two Purposes limited to a Low level."
Given that the Assessment also lists 50 sites that are either within the 'Low-Moderate' or the 'Low' assessment rating, the Council has failed to take into account their own Evidence Base in identifying sites and when informing their Local Plan strategy. As a result, it is considered that the Local Plan, as it stands, is unsound.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 16178
Received: 16/05/2016
Respondent: Joy Fook Restaurant
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Of the five sites that have been identified for release from the Green Belt, site 079A is considered to have a 'Low-Moderate' assessment rating, sites 022, 023 and 032, 087, 235 are considered to have a 'Moderate' racing, whilst 034 has a 'Moderate-High' rating. A 'Moderate' rating is defined as being where "development of the site will moderately affect the site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt" and where either: -
- Three, or all, Green Belt Purposes is assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- One Purpose of the Green Belt is assessed to a High Level and at least two Purposes are assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- Two Purposes are assessed to a High Level and the other two Purposes limited to a Low level."
Given that the Assessment also lists 50 sites that are either within the 'Low-Moderate' or the 'Low' assessment rating, the Council has failed to take into account their own Evidence Base in identifying sites and when informing their Local Plan strategy. As a result, it is considered that the Local Plan, as it stands, is unsound.
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 16204
Received: 16/05/2016
Respondent: Mr Hugh Thomson
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Of the five sites that have been identified for release from the Green Belt, site 079A is considered to have a 'Low-Moderate' assessment rating, sites 022, 023 and 032, 087, 235 are considered to have a 'Moderate' racing, whilst 034 has a 'Moderate-High' rating. A 'Moderate' rating is defined as being where "development of the site will moderately affect the site's contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt" and where either: -
- Three, or all, Green Belt Purposes is assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- One Purpose of the Green Belt is assessed to a High Level and at least two Purposes are assessed to a Moderate Level; or
- Two Purposes are assessed to a High Level and the other two Purposes limited to a Low level."
Given that the Assessment also lists 50 sites that are either within the 'Low-Moderate' or the 'Low' assessment rating, the Council has failed to take into account their own Evidence Base in identifying sites and when informing their Local Plan strategy. As a result, it is considered that the Local Plan, as it stands, is unsound.
See attached
Comment
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 16206
Received: 16/05/2016
Respondent: Mr. Richard Shayler
Agent: Landmark Town Planning Services
Ford Wells has entered into an agreement with the Landowner at Hulletts Farm, Pilgrim's Hatch, Brentwood (east of A128 Ongar Road, west and east of Hulletts Lane and north of Orchard Lane) to promote the residential development of the landholding including the conservation of the Grade II listed farmhouse and the two interesting buildings , a byre and a stable within its curtilage. The latter are considered suitable for residential conversion , the farmhouse itself is presently occupied but requires extensive repairs, refurbishment and updating. The outbuildings will require very considerable work to effect sympathetic repair and conversion.
To inform the Local Plan process two reports by Alan Stones AADip TPDip IHBC ret , heritage consultant and former head of design and historic buildings at ECC are included with this Comment Form. Also included is a preliminary study by Ashby Design which indicates how up to 71 new houses could be accommodated on the land adjoining the farmhouse and curtilage listed outbuildings. The need to safeguard the setting of the latter is fully appreciated
See attached
Object
Draft Local Plan
Representation ID: 16320
Received: 10/05/2016
Respondent: Go Holdings
Agent: The John Bishop Partnership
Support the high level priority given to PDL redevelopment and small releases of Green Belt land, as set out in the Draft Local Plan that meet the objectives of both containments but at the same time connectivity, considering this, alongside the adjacent land at Ingatestone Nursery (Site Ref. 128), land at Valentine should also be given preference in the site allocations document for residential development and open space.
The eradication of brownfield sites is a priority in the NPPF and more recent planning documents.
See attached.