brentwood.gov.uk

My objection to the above planning is as follows:- The density of residential housing in this area will be increased by a large percentage. 20 houses on such a small plot of land (which has been incorrectly identified on the plans) will mean that this semi-rural area will be changed significantly. The Brentwood Local Plan in 2016 states Development within the Green Belt will only be permitted if it maintains the Green Belt's openness and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or harm its visual amenities. The 2 proposals I am objecting to, most definitely conflict with this statement, as they will significantly change the look and feel of the open space next to my property and the look of Tipps Cross Remembrance Hall and its attached field. All of the gardens surrounding site 294 for will overshadowed and therefore changed by the proposed new development. According to the planning proposal consulted on previously in this area, it is stated that there must be green open spaces to use for recreation within a certain number of meters of every property. This cannot be adhered to if the proposed development takes place. The local community will be robbed of their recreation space. Again I quote from the Local Plan of 2016 POLICY 9.12: SITE ALLOCATIONS IN GREEN BELT Sites allocated to meet housing needs in Green Belt will be expected to provide significant community benefit, both for surrounding existing communities and those moving into new homes on site. I do not understand how sites 085B and 294 can possibly provide significant community benefit. The council, in fact, will be taking the benefit of a community green open space away from the surrounding community. The parish council has stated the hall will not benefit from the loss of their field, as it may become harder in some instances to hire out the hall. The hall may then become unsustainable due to a loss of revenue, thus further disadvantaging the local people. As the proposed 2 developments will mean an increase of traffic, noise, pollution in a small space, and will also increase the residential density of the area, I cannot see how anyone would benefit. All of the gardens backing onto the 2 fields will be adversely affected by the building of 20 houses. The privacy of these gardens will be changed for the worse, and several of them will be overshadowed and receive far less light. In the previous consultation, the above 2 sites are not mentioned at all. It is unfair that these 2 proposed developments be added, and not given very careful consideration. The plans also incorrectly show that the site 294 includes the gardens of 2 houses in Tipps Cross Lane. Surely the Council is not proposing they allow the developer to build on private property not belonging to them!! If this is incorrect and the developer cannot get their plans right at this stage, I am very concerned as to what else could be done wrong. Has this proposed site been added very quickly at the last moment, and not been fairly considered? The development of 20 houses on the 2 sites will comprehensively change the look and feel of this local area and of my property, to its detriment. Whilst I understand that site 294 is not a public place, the space is open, and has always been protected only by a small fence. This is stated in the Trust that is in place on site 085B. The land has a natural open look and is home to many species of birds and insects which need further protecting by the Green Belt registration currently on it. The registration was placed on the land for a reason, so should not be removed without very careful thought to the environment. In summary, I appeal to Brentwood Council to visit the area. Look at Tipps Cross Hall and the adjoining properties and see just how badly we as current residents will be affected by the 2 developments. I myself, wanted to buy part of the land directly next to my house, part of 085B, to extend my garden. I was told categorically that this could never happen, as the land could never be sold or used for anything other than a playing field attached to the hall because it was held in a trust. It is now unfair that we should be subjected to the 2 developments, when we were told by the Council that the space could never be built upon.