Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19154

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. ARA & CR Jamieson

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

Unclear of what the actual housing numbers are - 7600 or 9000? According to 2011 census information online, Brentwood had 30,600 households at that time. Assuming (generously) that this equates to 30,600 individual homes, this still appears to mean that the Brentwood district will grow over the next 15 years by approximately 25% - 30%, and it is impossible to imagine that this can do other than change the whole character of the area.

Full text:

I write on behalf of myself and my wife to register our serious concerns at the potential impact of the proposals embodied in the local plan. Before I begin, I should perhaps apologise if it turns out that I have based what follows on partial information, or on a misunderstanding of what is proposed. To some extent, I assume this must be the case, since in some areas (my first three bullet points below) the plan appears to be contradicting itself. I am assuming that the document of interest is the one headed 'Preferred Site Allocations 2018' - I have trawled through the website looking for other relevant information, and also in the hopes that there might actually be a shorter summary document, but have found neither. Regrettably I have struggled with this document because so much of it is given over to, what is for me, irrelevant minutiae relating to government policy; because different figures appear in different places; because it makes use of jargon and - my apologies - because the earlier portions are given over to meaningless platitudes. Anyway, assuming this is the correct document, I have a number of specific points : The introductory comments suggest state that 'People choose to live and work here because of the excellent transport links connecting us to London and the rest of the country, along with access to the surrounding countryside and green spaces' and also that 'A "borough of villages" will continue to be a defining characteristic of the area.' Green field and Green Belt development: I struggle to see how a plan which envisages significant building upon green-field sites can be reconciled with maintaining the bucolic charms which you see as an essential characteristic of the town; and nor do I see how the notion of a 'borough of villages' is enhanced by concreting over the gaps between them. There was a time - I believed - when the green belt was supposed to be sacrosanct, but I presume this is no longer the case. My concern is not simply the present intention to build within the Green Belt, but the inevitable precedent this sets. I presume the argument runs that we would be building only / mainly on Green Belt sites which are already compromised by existing development. But in so doing, yet more land will be compromised - paving the way for the same argument to be repeated forever, while the Green Belt steadily vanishes under tarmac. Rail links: If we really believe that fast transport links are a major attractor, I cannot understand how a plan to build on the station car park can do anything other than undermine this. You may be able to get to London in twenty minutes from the station, but if your journey time to the station now takes twenty minutes more than before because you can't park there (longer if you have to travel early and there are no buses), surely the fact that the train is fast is irrelevant - and certainly for businesses there must be a temptation to locate elsewhere where possibly property prices are lower? Transport infrastructure: Presumably you must have considered the impact of the plan upon the road and general transport infrastructure of the town, but the plan seems to have nothing to say about the transport infrastructure to support all this development (or if it does, I have failed to find it). As you will know only too well, Brentwood essentially has only one major road east-west, and one north-south, and even without blockages, travel across town can be extremely time-consuming and frustrating, particularly at rush hour - in addition reducing air quality in the town centre; and I know that in towns such as Cambridge, traffic congestion has caused a number of startups to abandon plans to locate in the city, and to move elsewhere. Proposals for significant further building in the town centre cannot but exacerbate the problem - and exacerbate it significantly. Developments on William Hunter Way and on the Wates Way Industrial Estate are particular cases in point, the latter in respect of the awkward junction between Burland Rd and Ongar Rd. I imagine you must have modelled likely capacity requirements and have proposals to address them? What were the outcomes of those investigations, and what specific plans are in place to relieve the congestion which will otherwise inevitably arise? Are you considering further road building (and if so, how much existing property will need to be demolished to make way for new or widened roads, and to what extent will this compromise what you are trying to achieve); and what provision is being made for public transport? Overall growth: I have had difficulty identifying the actual number of dwellings the plan envisages, since different numbers appear in different places in the document. So far as I can see, the plan calls for an additional 7600 houses over the period to 2033 - or possibly it calls for 9080. According to 2011 census information online, Brentwood had 30,600 households at that time. Assuming (generously) that this equates to 30,600 individual homes, this still appears to mean that the Brentwood district will grow over the next 15 years by approximately 25% - 30%, and it is impossible to imagine that this can do other than change the whole character of the area. Car parks: I am concerned at the number of Brentwood town-centre car parks which the plan envisages giving over to housing. What studies have you carried out to investigate the impact of this upon town-centre businesses, and what is the risk that this will simply drive shoppers away from Brentwood altogether? (And in the latter case, what is your estimate of the environmental impact of the additional travel?) Plans by Tesco: I realise that Tesco's plans to redevelop the Hopefield Animal Sanctuary site appear to be outside the scope of the plan. Nonetheless, they would certainly impact upon Brentwood town centre, and therefore upon the developments covered by the plan. Is planning permission likely to be given to Tesco? If so, how is it intended that the new development should be linked to existing roads, given that there are a number of schools along Sawyer's Hall Lane, and the area is already very congested at the start and end of the school day? And what impact would it have upon the council's own plan? Plans for the Ford Offices at Warley: I was unaware that this site might become available. Is Ford planning a closure off its own bat? And if the offices do close, has any assessment been made of the impact upon the local economy? Let us close by thanking you for your time in considering these issues. We look forward to any comments you can make to set our minds at rest.