To whom it may concern,

Firstly, thank you for giving the community the opportunity to find out about and comment on the council's plans for our town. I think it would be useful for residents to have a summarised version as at over 200 pages long it is more than most people are going to be willing to peruse. I have done my best to read as much as I can in one evening and shall comment on the points I consider most important. I welcome the drop in events being held and I hope to attend. I am one of the unfortunate residents who has missed the boat when it comes to buying a property in Brentwood, and possibly even Essex. I grew up in Brentwood as have many generations of my family before me.

With the exception of the land off Doddinghurst Road on either side of the A12, I agree to the proposals for the building of more properties. I think the land by Doddinghurst Road would be better used to provide a slip road giving access to the A12 at that point. It would reduce the traffic heading through Brentwood town centre and possibly open up opportunities to build dwellings in Pilgrims Hatch and further north in the borough without impacting so much on traffic through the town. I expect this would not be a popular suggestion if it is even possible!

Your plan doesn't make the definition of the term "intermediate" clear. Would this be "affordable" properties such as shared ownership and Help to Buy? A household of two people earning the average wage of £26,500 (perhaps teachers or nurses) with two dependants under 18 could perhaps borrow £225,000. Will there be family homes which would be affordable to that kind of family? I recently called Help to Buy East and South East to get an indication of the value of the property my husband and I could purchase using the Help to Buy Equity Loan scheme. I was told we could buy a property in the region of £210,000 which was disappointing given that we would require a family sized home and for that in Essex the minimum cost would be around £260-270k for a new build. Given that Brentwood has very high house prices compared to other towns in Essex I am concerned that "affordable" homes will still be out of the reach of many of the town's residents, including ourselves. I was very excited when I first heard of the Government's new Starter Homes scheme, however when I realised that the scheme had a long way to go before being finalised and available for use I was very disappointed, as my husband will have passed the cut off age of 40 by that time. Maybe it may be an option for my children to purchase a home in 15 years or so!

I don't think the 35% minimum of affordable housing goes far enough given that that will include social housing. At the end of 2012 there were around 1000 people on the social housing waiting list. The plan is for a little over 5000 new homes, so around 20% should be for social housing. This leaves only 15% for "affordable" homes. I expect the 35% also includes the sheltered housing that will need to be replaced. I understand that the developers want to maximise their profits and I'm sure if all the properties build were sold at market value they would sell with no problems, however this wouldn't be right for the community. Another thing that is very important for me is that the more affordable properties (if not all properties) are offered to people with a strong local connection first, but I from what I have read something is in place to ensure this happens. I know many people are moving out from London as the city becomes even more affordable and it would be pretty galling if these families were snapping up our "affordable" homes.

I also think that the ratio of 1,2,3 and 4 properties should be reconsidered. Given that families on the waiting list for social housing are waiting longer for 3 bedroom properties than for smaller ones it makes me think the need for larger properties is high.

I recently enquired about the homes to be built on the old Warley Adult College site and the developer informed me that the flats would not be eligible for the scheme and there was no guarantee that the houses would be part of the scheme either. This is because according to them the terms of Right to Buy state that there must be no longer than 6 months between reservation and completion. Do you think this could be an issue with providing other Help to Buy homes in the proposed developments? How could this be prevented?

I am intrigued by the 5% self build allocation on larger developments. How would somebody get involved with that? Would you be looking for people to set up a Community Land Trust?

There isn't a huge amount of detail said in the draft plan regarding the William Hunter Way improvements. I agree with the general consensus that a cinema would be a great asset to the community and should be built on the site. My main concern would be how to provide enough parking to replace the spaces lost by the building. Would there be underground parking or perhaps rooftop parking similar to The Brewery in Romford? If Lidl is to go ahead with opening a store at Wates Way then perhaps another supermarket on the William Hunter Way site would not be necessary.

I was recently searching for part time office based job in Brentwood, which was not that easy due to the lack of jobs being advertised. Any opportunity to create more jobs in the town and reduce the need for commuting can surely only be a good thing.

That is all the feedback I have for now. I hope that you can address my concerns.

As referenced by Brandon Lewis MP in communication to Rt Hon Sir Eric Pickles MP (ref. 1834883), The "Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015" comes into force in April 2016. I would like this to be referenced in the LDP self-build policy 7.2 as appropriate.

Given the expected demand for self-build (as referenced in point #67 of the 2011 Housing Strategy for England), I would propose that the minimum 5% self-build should also apply to developments of 20 or more dwellings to ensure that the 5% target is met overall. As referenced by Brandon Lewis MP in communication to Rt Hon Sir Eric Pickles MP (ref. 1834883), The Housing and Planning Bill which is currently going through Parliament will require local authorities to ensure there are sufficient plots with planning permission to meet the local demand shown on the local self-build register. Therefore, the number of self-build plots allocated per site should be proportional to the local demand for self-build within Brentwood, with 5% considered as a minimum. This percentage should be evaluated at the time of any planning application versus the demand noted on the local self-build register once this is in place.

* For smaller dwellings (under 20) on brownfield land owned by the taxpayer, I propose that local Brentwood residents (represented as individuals or local community groups; eg Community Interest Companies) who have shown an interest in self-build by signing up to a self-build register should be given first priority for such brownfield sites with at least 10% of sites (IE, not dwellings within sites) being prioritised for self-build and custom housebuilding.

* For smaller dwellings (under 20) on brownfield land not owned by the taxpayer, I propose that the decision for the proportion of plots to be allocated as self-build would be a decision solely for the landowner, with the local council merely encouraging the landowners to consider "direct-to-consumer self or custom-build" as an attractive option.

A strong focus and lead on self-build within Brentwood will bring communities together, will get more dwellings built and more bricklayers trained in this borough.

With regards to developing self-build and custom-build guidance, a useful site locally can be found on the neighbouring council website - this includes access to a custom build homes fund and a self-build register.
http://www.chelmsford.gov.uk/selfbuild

There needs to be an explicit presumption against low-density development. In other words, detached and semi-detached housing should be permitted only in exceptional circumstances, and the presumption should be for high-rise flats, so as to make the most efficient possible use of land. As previously stated, the green belt must take precedence over any misguided notions of 'preserving' a skyline.

In line with the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 the council shall determine the level of interest in custom or self build housing via a register (and other means in the interim) and use this data to determine the quantity of serviced self build plots to be made available based on the size of development. The currently proposed 5% of plots for developments of 100 or more should be reviewed in line with demand and other council policies. 5% of developments of 20 or more dwellings should be considered (offered within the development or elsewhere).

Teinbridge district council have a custom and self build policy based on the self build demand determined from their own list and from registered users of the Plotseach website. Their policy requires that "large sites of more than 20 dwellings should provide at least 5% of dwelling plots for sale to custom builders. The Council expects these plots to be sold with outline planning permission, services to the boundary and access" and "The Council will expect all plots to be made available with the appropriate service connections installed." - Website - https://www.teignbridge.gov.uk/selfbuild

See two attached comment sheets.

See attached

See attached

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached

See attached

See attached

1. Essex Fire Service HQ Rayleigh Rd
.I submit that the allocation of 50 units to this site cannot be justified for the following reasons:

1.1 Para 5.42 of the Plan states that you have applied densities in a realistic manner taking in surrounding development and general form of an area
The only basis on which the site could accommodate 50 dwellings would be for even more flats, possibly with more floors, than the present outline application for 44 dwellings. This would not take into account "surrounding development and general form of an area" as the site is surrounded by detached houses and is bordered on Rayleigh Rd mainly by large detached houses.

1.2 Appendix 2 - "Housing and Employment Delivery" shows that you have applied a density of 40 dwellings per hectare to this site and used the site area of 1.26 hectares to arrive at the estimate of 50 I would challenge the use of 40 per hectare as it would conflict directly with several of the policies in the Plan as follows:

a) Policy 7.3 states:
"Proposals for new residential development should take a design led approach to density which ensures schemes are sympathetic to local character and make efficient use of land.
Residential densities will be expected to be 30 dwellings per hectare net or higher unless the special character of the surrounding area suggests that such densities would be inappropriate; or where other site constraints make such densities unachievable."
It would be inappropriate to apply even 30 because the site has a very large number of trees which make anything higher "unachievable", particularly to meet the first para of 7.3 in terms of "sympathy to local character"

b) This number of dwellings could not be accommodated within the terms of Policy 6.3 a) "have no unacceptable effect on visual amenity, the character or appearance of the surrounding area;" and e). "cause no unacceptable effects on adjoining sites,by overlooking or visual intrusion; harm to or loss of outlook, privacy
c) It would be in direct contradiction of point 6.16 under General Development Planning in particular overlooking neighbouring properties and being sympathetic to the character and form of neighbouring properties." New development should be sympathetic to the character and form of neighbouring properties and surroundings
d) This is repeated again in Policy 6.4 d "safeguard the amenities of occupiers or any nearby properties by ensuring that their character and appearance is sensitive to the context and surroundings."

2. Housing Types
The Strategic Housing Market Assessment lacks the credibility to determine such an important aspect of housing policy, namely that 65% of future dwellings should be 1 or 2 bedroom flats, for the following reasons:
a)It is based on responses from only 3% of all properties in Brentwood.
b)It is based on an old survey in June 2013 where people were asked, among other things, whether they wanted to move and when.
No attempt has been made to get actual data to compare with intentions from people who said they aimed to move in the three years from mid 2013. 51% of them at least should have moved by now so we really need to know whether they did or did not and where they moved to.
c) Much of the demand for flats comes from "Concealed Householders" i.e. those living with parents/family at present. Their main reasons for wanting to buy a flat in the borough were either that they wanted to live near family and friends, or that they have always lived in the area.
Whilst it would be nice to be able to satisfy these wishes for everybody, many people who now own their own houses accepted that they might have to move away from their home turf to possibly cheaper areas to gain their independence.
The survey makes it clear(Table 6-2) that local prices for one bed flats are out of reach of the incomes of over 80% of concealed households yet the strategy states that the main areas people want live are Brentwood and Shenfield, which are the most expensive areas. It seems illogical therefore to plan to build so many flats in these areas
One possible outcome is that there will be insufficient demand for all of these flats and that developers will therefore not be interested in investing in such developments unless a more balanced approach to housing types is adopted.

1. Essex Fire Service HQ Rayleigh Rd
.I submit that the allocation of 50 units to this site cannot be justified for the following reasons:

1.1 Para 5.42 of the Plan states that you have applied densities in a realistic manner taking in surrounding development and general form of an area
The only basis on which the site could accommodate 50 dwellings would be for even more flats, possibly with more floors, than the present outline application for 44 dwellings. This would not take into account "surrounding development and general form of an area" as the site is surrounded by detached houses and is bordered on Rayleigh Rd mainly by large detached houses.

1.2 Appendix 2 - "Housing and Employment Delivery" shows that you have applied a density of 40 dwellings per hectare to this site and used the site area of 1.26 hectares to arrive at the estimate of 50 I would challenge the use of 40 per hectare as it would conflict directly with several of the policies in the Plan as follows:

a) Policy 7.3 states:
"Proposals for new residential development should take a design led approach to density which ensures schemes are sympathetic to local character and make efficient use of land.
Residential densities will be expected to be 30 dwellings per hectare net or higher unless the special character of the surrounding area suggests that such densities would be inappropriate; or where other site constraints make such densities unachievable."
It would be inappropriate to apply even 30 because the site has a very large number of trees which make anything higher "unachievable", particularly to meet the first para of 7.3 in terms of "sympathy to local character"

b) This number of dwellings could not be accommodated within the terms of Policy 6.3 a) "have no unacceptable effect on visual amenity, the character or appearance of the surrounding area;" and e). "cause no unacceptable effects on adjoining sites,by overlooking or visual intrusion; harm to or loss of outlook, privacy
c) It would be in direct contradiction of point 6.16 under General Development Planning in particular overlooking neighbouring properties and being sympathetic to the character and form of neighbouring properties." New development should be sympathetic to the character and form of neighbouring properties and surroundings
d) This is repeated again in Policy 6.4 d "safeguard the amenities of occupiers or any nearby properties by ensuring that their character and appearance is sensitive to the context and surroundings."

2. Housing Types
The Strategic Housing Market Assessment lacks the credibility to determine such an important aspect of housing policy, namely that 65% of future dwellings should be 1 or 2 bedroom flats, for the following reasons:
a)It is based on responses from only 3% of all properties in Brentwood.
b)It is based on an old survey in June 2013 where people were asked, among other things, whether they wanted to move and when.
No attempt has been made to get actual data to compare with intentions from people who said they aimed to move in the three years from mid 2013. 51% of them at least should have moved by now so we really need to know whether they did or did not and where they moved to.
c) Much of the demand for flats comes from "Concealed Householders" i.e. those living with parents/family at present. Their main reasons for wanting to buy a flat in the borough were either that they wanted to live near family and friends, or that they have always lived in the area.
Whilst it would be nice to be able to satisfy these wishes for everybody, many people who now own their own houses accepted that they might have to move away from their home turf to possibly cheaper areas to gain their independence.
The survey makes it clear(Table 6-2) that local prices for one bed flats are out of reach of the incomes of over 80% of concealed households yet the strategy states that the main areas people want live are Brentwood and Shenfield, which are the most expensive areas. It seems illogical therefore to plan to build so many flats in these areas
One possible outcome is that there will be insufficient demand for all of these flats and that developers will therefore not be interested in investing in such developments unless a more balanced approach to housing types is adopted.

See attached

See attached.

see attached

see attached

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.