Comment

Strategic Growth Options

Representation ID: 9296

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Paul Lammin

Representation Summary:

This question largely depends on what you mean by terms like 'Green Infrastructure'. Furthermore I would look at supporting and maintaining the historic villages in Brentwood and the infrastructure required.

Full text:

Q1: No - The continual suggested large scale developments of predominantly greenbelt land is unacceptable. The small villages of Brentwood are historic and do not need developing into an inner city style extension of London.

Q2: No - The tone of wording used suggests small developments in villages with minimal use of Green Belt land, however, this does not match up with the proposed sites, with for example 028C and 192 large areas of Green Belt with thousands of proposed new houses. Your presenting of issues is done disingenuously.

Q3: Yes - Again to ref 028C and 192. An area of largely Green Belt land the size of Shenfield and Hutton combined put forward for development?! This is not 'allowing villages to grow to meet local need' it is turning rural environment into a large urban area. Villages aren't growing they are being absorbed into a new town.

Q4: A127 growth corridor. Largely due to the fact that there is only one settlement there however, again scale of development is key; adding another village the size of Ingrave is not unreasonable, creating a town the size of Shenfield is.

Q5: No - Releasing sites on the edges of urban areas and turning all the land between two towns into housing are two different things. I would say yes however, the developments being suggested are so large that they cannot be described as sites on urban edges but entire new towns. Again your presenting of the question is divisive and disingenuous.

Q6: Green field sites should not be used, that is the point of them being greenfield, they are natural land preserved; not for development. So brownfield sites only.

Q7: Yes - Which further supports my point that sites should be kept to a minimum in size; to reduce congestion on the current network.

Q8: Yes - But it is vital that we do not lose the historic look of our town centre or build in a way that does not fit with the aesthetic of the town.

Q9: Yes.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 4

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial/Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 3
Degraded/Derelict/Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure/Recreation Facilities: 3

Q12: This question largely depends on what you mean by terms like 'Green Infrastructure'. Furthermore I would look at supporting and maintaining the historic villages in Brentwood and the infrastructure required.

Q13:
Education
Green Areas (Wildlife etc)
Healthcare
Historical Maintenance.

Attachments: