brentwood.gov.uk

To make it clear I am not against development of new homes for Brentwood. No NIMBYISM here, however Brentwood Council are heading towards ruining the look of Brentwood by potentially allowing intense modern housing on this particular piece of land.( I am not against new homes at Honeypot Lane but I am truly terrified on how it is being approached and equally terrified my comments will not be properly considered) How I see the site when built:(Honeypot Lane) The houses will be built (as you say) by a national builder and I have every reason to believe the finished houses will be painted white/cream with a mixture of orange and grey roofs. They will be relatively small, crammed together and crucially they will be expensive. What is wrong with above approach? Apart from everything. 1-Not only will this Greenbelt land turn into a triangle of "ticky tacky houses" that will look the same as almost all modern houses going up all over the UK - and makes absolutely no "nod" to historic Brentwood, it will also form a non integrated wedge, a juxtaposition, if you like, abutting nearby housing. The view will be horrible coming from South Weald because it will be the first thing you see as you come over the brow of the hill if travelling from South Weald (allot of traffic from Romford areas use Weald Road.) 2- With all this mass housing being served up by national builders across the country they are forming pockets of starter homes that will end up having the same problems of social exclusion in much the same way as the 60's high rise flats did- Flats and crammed housing work the same way in terms of neighbour behaviour. It is basic stuff this but if you cram people together they build defensive social barriers- Sorry this is school by stuff but needs reminding every now and then. * Give this 20 or 30years and this will become a no go area on the bottom of any aspirational housing formula that could be applied. In effect, simply because of lack of vision, you are creating a situation, with this panic building, that will soon become socially divisive. *It would be better to use more greenbelt for houses that are of light density than trying to appease the public by using small amounts of Greenbelt resulting in crammed in homes. I realise this is a huge subject with many nuances but there are choices such as using more greenbelt with low height housing (even green roofs and underground dwelling space.) Too big a subject for here. The answer? 1-No matter how hard and inconvenient it will be, this land (if developed) needs to be lower* density (it has been Greenbelt for many decades after all) * IF this master plan has to have open green spaces within the site, the question to ask is (particularly on this site with South Weald Park literally across the road) would people prefer to have more space (garden) BETWEEN THEIR HOME OR A COMMUNIAL GREEN SPACE-? which always seems patronising anyway- I know what I would prefer. 2- This land needs to be allocated to self build/ commissioned builds with larger gardens (hence lower density)- May I suggest you (the Council) borrow money and buy this land and then sell off individual serviced plots to people that want to build heir own home and preference on the sale of these plots (that would be oversubscribed) to individuals that have or have had close associations with Brentwood. The developer/owner would not like this (much preferring to cram little expensive boxes on this Greenbelt but you (the Council) are in a more powerful position than anyone else to make this happen. 3- Allow people who build on this land a light touch with little design interference (need some degree of approval of course) but the Homesteads that abuts this land was created in the way I am describing. They were built and designed before the Planning Acts came into force in the late 1940's and now is probably one of the most desirable places to live in Brentwood with people appreciating the eclectic mix of house design amongst the tree lined avenues. There is no reason why this land could not be an updated version of this and it will integrate well into the housing that exists on the boundaries. Conclusion: I am advocating selling this land via individual lots to self builders and with a light touch of design will produce innovative individual properties that will be a positive legacy for Brentwood. This wedge site 022 is destined to become an abrupt incongruous lazy planning mistake. The Council has the power to change this site into an area of creativity and design. As long as the plots were of an adequate size for a decent size garden, it will mature into a leafy aspirational area that will integrate into nearby housing. A good example of this is Burses Way etc in Hutton. In the 1950's this land was developed by a private builder that offered housing that were of various designs and these houses interrogated well into Hutton Mount, People from Burses Way walked (and still do) through Hutton Mount to get the commuter trains to London from Shenfield station and there was no feeling of envy or social discord. Learn from the past or we are gong to end up with a horrible and isolated wedge of noddy houses with anti social consequences. The master Plan: Albeit I have not seen a master plan of this site or even know if one has been produced as of yet but any new sizeable development has got to fuse in some way into the surrounding areas or you get isolation and demarcations. If the proposed houses were self builds, and leafy, then the surrounding area (such as the Homesteads) would more readily accept a connection. The present strategy is heading for isolation and you simply DO NOT have to do this. Practicalities: I realise by making the density smaller may give rise to a shortage of the numbers of houses you are trying to achieve but you could find the extra housing within the existing settlement boundary with a little thought application and, dare I say it, a more proactive and creative planning team. Planning, in my opinion, has developed into a nasty game of brinkmanship and unintended Council hypocrisy, and this site needs an opposite approach with Planners making positive contributions by working with individuals building their own unique home. This site is great opportunity PLEASE don't let a national builder serve up their normal fair, rip our youngsters off, ruin the look of an important part of Brentwood before moving on to do the same elsewhere. Finally If you are going to use greenbelt (and understandably people do feel betrayed that you are) then let the housing fit with their neighbours in the way I have suggested. Once you build a housing estate of yawningly sameness you will have a hell of a job changing that later and missed a great opportunity to lead the way on how to use greenbelt sensitively. It seems you are going through this housing allocation like an arithmetical exorcise and not as peoples future homes. If this development goes ahead in the way it looks like it will go ahead (national builder etc)., the Council will be culpable in being party to our youngsters being ripped off.(and our local economy being mugged) What is the saying about giving a man a fish and not a fishing rod (excuse the mashed up metaphor)- This site could not lend itself better in terms of where it is and what it is next to (Homesteads for example) by allowing people to build their own quality homes. The Council could make a reasonable profit out of selling the serviced plots and people could create wonderful innovatively designed houses for the same amount of money as buying a national builders rabbit hatch. Let the local economy gain from the building of individual homes and not let the national builders come in and suck money out of our local economy. What I propose will be harder to administer than just letting big business get fat but the rewards will be worth it. Remember, people in the UK are in love with property, all you need to do is light the blue touchpaper and you will very soon see wonderful quality designed properties emerging. I guess what I am saying is it is about time that self serving national builders and Councils just got out of the way-(Please !)