brentwood.gov.uk

Site 294 - Chestnut field. This is a piece of back land being part of the property encircled in RED "Chestnut Lodge" as shown below. The site is Green Belt and has been used for small ponies in the past. The site's development relies upon the owner of the land (adjoining the main road to Blackmore), giving permission for an access road, which we believe is Brentwood Council as detailed below and part of Tips Cross Remembrance Hall, referenced in site 085B which we comment on next. The name "Chestnut field" is a newly adopted name and we believe it has been given this name in an attempt to separate the scale of the development and to hide the fact that 20 houses are being planned, only 10 of which are on "Chestnut field" The landowner, who resides at "Chestnut Lodge" would profit massively from this development, which is on Green Belt land. The Council has strongly and fiercely declined planning permission on this site and site 085B over the last 40 years to our personal knowledge. (294 policy map included). Site 085B - Land adjacent to Tipps Cross Community Hall. In commenting on this development, our objections should also be read in conjunction with Site 294 as they effectively encompass the same proposed development on Green belt which is part of the Community Hall. These two sites 085B and 294 were in past times a cricket ground and social club called "The Stondon Massey Ex Servicemen's Club". This land was given in Trust to create a permanent amenity for the survivors, their families and descendants from two World Wars, and other conflicts like the Korean War. In the 1990's the "The Stondon Massey Ex Servicemen's Club" was acquired by Brentwood Council, and the backland (now called Chestnut Field) fenced off. The Council then built the new Community Hall. To develop the small existing playing field is a slap in the face to local people and shows complete disrespect and disregard by the Council of the original wishes and intentions of the Trust. If the development goes ahead, the value of the hall as a local amenity is greatly diminished. Both sites should remain as Green Belt, rather than being developed as an insidious urbanisation of a semi-rural area. Finally, we do not believe that The Council is unable to find more suitable locations to build 20 houses on true Brown field sites. We assert that this land should be retained as an important local resource. (085 policy map)