brentwood.gov.uk

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54

Refer to full scan of submission for detail
Propose modification to Policy R18. A response form and legal and historical note are submitted with a request to pas onto the site promoters. Having worked in the Councils legal services, leaving in May 2015, Papers were left with Christine Stephenson and recommended that Counsel's advice be taken, but nothing was done. The proposed redevelopment of the Regional Blood Transfusion Centre in Policy R19 provides an opportunity to restore the infrastructure and the open space, with buffer screening on Crescent Drive and vehicular access form Glanthams Road.
The 2011 Transfer of the Open Space to the Council provided for a footpath on the eastern site of the Community Hospital. I mention in paragraph 19 of the Note that the Policy site boundary is incorrect and should be regularised.
The Lawyers for NHS property may have ore historic documents, in particular pre-registration deeds. On first registration the registered estate is vested in the proprietor together with all interests subsisting for the benefit of the estate. The land has the benefit of appurtenant rights whether registered or not.
The 2011 Transfer was made with limited title guarantee, and excluded rights otherwise conferred by Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 and this rule in Wheeldon - v- Burrows. I infer that the Conveyancers acting for the NHS at that tie were unaware of the full factual position, No doubt the site owners will research records and take legal advice: I am happy to assist if that is considered appropriate. I enclose a second copy of this letter and enclosure for you to forward to the representatives of the land owner for this purpose.

A note is prepared with supporting evidence documental which should be referred to.
Summary
1. (i) The site of the North Thames Regional Transfusion Centre, (Draft Policy Rl8 ) proposed for residential redevelopment is now in an area of relative deficiency of open space. This was not always so however, but during the period of statutory control by the NHS, land management of access to open space was sadly neglected. The annexed historical and legal note with supporting documents show that the title to the land has appurtenant rights which should be exercised in conjunction with the Council in order to enforce rights over estate roads to the woodland open space and thereby to give proper and sustainable effect to NPPF policies.

(ii) Vehicular access should be taken only via private road section of Glanthams Road, restored to the full width legally available under the easement and estate covenants appurtenant to the freehold title. The legacy of Percy Alfred Bayman who planted trees and shrubs in the hospital grounds as well as gifting land should be respected and restored by enforcing the estate covenants appurtenant to the land title.

(iii) The restrictive covenant referred to in paragraph 2 of this reply may be modified by the application to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber but it should be noted that while statutory powers have enabled covenants to be overridden, that protection will cease on sale. A more significant issue is the existence of a building scheme satisfying the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal in Birdlip Limited -v- Hunter benefitting the site and also benefitting the Council owned open space. It seems the draft policy is predicated on a developer taking out indemnity insurance and packaging a residential development without reconnecting to the Glanthams Park estate road or facilitating access to the woodland open space. This would be inimical to the policies and purposes of the NPPF.

(iv) The proposed policy R18 does not take an integrated approach to housing and open space facilities, does not protect or enhance rights of way or take into account the possibility of adding to high quality rights of way.

(v) The developable area of the Rl8 site together with the need for on site open space should be reappraised along with the restoration of Glanthams Road, particularly as the site is within an area well served by public transport and could have a significant uplift in the average density beyond what is already proposed.

Historical overview
2. By the National Health Service Act 1946 local voluntary hospitals were brought into public ownership - the Act transferred to the Minister all hospitals with their endowments. Percy Alfred Bayman had transferred to the Trustees of a charity known as the Brentwood District Hospital land shown and coloured pink blue yellow green mauve and brown on the plan annexed to a transfer dated the 15th day of June 1931. The Transfer included the benefit of covenants on the part of the Minister of Transport contained in a conveyance dated the 1st day of March 1929 and made between the Minister of Transport and Mr. Bayman. The Trustees of the Charity covenanted to protect the neighbouring land being developed as a building estate and will not permit any building or wall on the land transferred other than the Hospital or any extension thereof including Nurses Homes Entrance Lodges or any buildings used in connection with the hospital.

3. I have prepared a historical note with supporting documents, listed at the end of the note, and this note is an appendix to this reply to Question 5. It will be seen that there is a need to restore the private road which has been encroached upon, and paragraph 98 of the NPPF should be pursued to allow public use of Glanthams Road along its full width. This would allow a footpath and cycle path and vehicles to use it to enable the woodland open space to be brought into positive use as a local public amenity. Glanthams Road could remain a private Road connecting to Worrin Road with a footpath/cycle path created by order under the Highways Act 1980 Section 26. Generally, once an easement or right of way has arisen it will continue indefinitely unless it is extinguished or released. Failure to use a right of way is not of itself sufficient to allow abandonment to be inferred: in the case of Benn-v-Hardinqe (1992) 60 P&CR 246 the Court of Appeal held that the failure to use the right for 175 years was not enough on its own to indicate an intention to abandon.

4. The site within Policy R18 has a boundary with number 17 Crescent Road which derives from the right to purchase granted in the Transfer of 1931 to Francis John Bassett (the brown land in that Transfer) to connect Glanthams Road with Crescent Road. The site abuts Glanthams Road at its South East comer, where adverse possession has taken place extending the gardens over several plots at Worrin Close. The land transferred by Mr. Bayman had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme for Glanthams Park estate whereby plot owners covenanted not to obstruct the passage along any estate road and to contribute to the repair and maintenance of the footway and half the carriage way. Although neither Glanthams Road nor the open space woodland have been maintained since the 1920s, this has been due to the intervention of statutory authorities. So the private estate covenants were suspended.

5. That position changes with the disposal of R18 policy site for residential development. The opportunity must now be taken to restore the private road and enforce the easements and covenants against obstructions to the passage along the unadopted part of Glanthams Road and also encroachments onto the open space at the rear of Glanthams Close, thereby enabling the woodland open space to be a public amenity in an area otherwise relatively deficient in open space. The developable area of the policy area R18 should be reviewed - there is little need for onsite public open space provision if the 9 and a half acres of woodland open space were restored and accessible.

6. Policies in the NPPF require the approach and modifications I put forward to the draft plan to achieve these planning policy objectives in the public interest. Paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note and the reply to question 6 refer.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54 hectares of woodland open space - a hugely valuable amenity if and when brought back into beneficial use.