brentwood.gov.uk

I am writing to support, in part, the addition to the Local Development Plan of the patch of scrubland on Mascalls Lane, adjacent to Carmel. I do not support the addition of the entire plot, however. Rather, I support only the addition of select parts of the plot, leaving the land at either end (by No 6 and No 16) and in the middle (by No 10, 12) as undeveloped, so as to act as buffers between Mascalls Park, Carmel and the proposed new homes.
(As this does not represent support for the existing proposal in its entirety, I am happy for this to be classified as an objection if the council deem this a more appropriate category).
In reaching this decision I have considered the following:
* Hilbery Chaplin seem determined, as is their wont, to leave the land in a terrible state - cutting back any growth, destroying habitats, and generally leaving the land looking something from the bleakest areas of Soviet Russia. Surely a partial development, with flourishing green corridors opposite No 6, No. 10 and No. 12, and No. 16, would be preferable to a daily view of such mean-spirited destruction.

* The affected residents of the intermediate band of properties have not, on other occasions, opposed overdevelopment in our road as a point of principle - and so I can only conclude that were they to oppose this patch's development, they'd be motivated merely by their own narrow sphere of interest (the only other interpretation - that in the past they displayed a marked lack of principle or community spirit cannot, surely, be true). Indeed, one such resident, in a surprising moment of animation, advised others to "leave emotion out of it" when appraising other proposed developments in The Dell - and so I have followed their wise counsel and taken a more utilitarian approach, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages to the whole area of this proposal. It is important to move beyond tired nimbyism and an avaricious obsession with preserving inflated property prices and assess the likely impact upon the local community as a whole, not just a small clutch of homeowners sitting on huge, unearned property dividends.

* This patch of land is anomalous: there's no other marooned patch of scurf enclosed by housing in this area - so there's no risk of setting a precedent (as there would be, for instance, with ugly two-storey, light-blocking rear extensions less than two metres from existing properties).

* The perceived disadvantages are very minor. Of course, two or three properties may be overlooked, but I'm sure the developers will plant trees along the border. In any case, other properties in the road are now overlooked by Mascalls Park, while those on our side have always been in sight of Hammonds Lane. As long as light isn't affected (which it wouldn't be given the size of the plot) then I see no issue. These houses are overlooked at the front, and now they will join the rest of the cul-de-sac in being overlooked to the rear, too.

* There is a real need for affordable housing in this area and development of parts of this forgotten and maltreated spot is surely preferable to incursions into genuine green belt land. I do not support the construction of a batch of depressing executive homes, of course, but if the land is used to provide either housing association stock, social housing or genuinely affordable starter homes, then I would support addition of very select parts of this plot to the plan.

I should note that this somewhat idiosyncratic take on the development is at odds with the other residents of this property (the actual homeowners) who firmly oppose any development in this area.