Support

Representation ID: 14459

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Mrs Judith Wright

Policy 9.12 is supported for land release from the Green Belt with explanatory paragraphs.

Support

Representation ID: 14470

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Jason Paisley

Policy 9.12 is supported for land release from the Green Belt with explanatory paragraphs.

Support

Representation ID: 14479

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Miss Deana Adansi

Policy 9.12 is supported for land release from the Green Belt with explanatory paragraphs.

Comment

Representation ID: 14481

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Asphaltic Developments Ltd

Agent: Rapleys LLP

Policy 9.12 states that the sites allocated for housing development in Green Belt will be deallocated from Green Belt and provide new defensible boundaries to protect open countryside for future generations. Our client's Site [the Brentwood Leisure Park at Warley Gap] is suitable for housing development as it is brownfield land, close to and well connected to the existing urban boundary of Brentwood. The site can sustainably accommodate residential development, without adversely affecting the openness of the Green Belt. As such, the Site should be allocated under Policy 9.12, as it offers significant potential to contribute to the Borough's housing requirements.

Support

Representation ID: 14486

Received: 18/04/2016

Respondent: Mr Chris Edwards

Policy 9.12 is supported for land release from the Green Belt with explanatory paragraphs.

Support

Representation ID: 15175

Received: 28/04/2016

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Limited

Agent: CODE Development Planners Ltd

The allocation of a new garden village at Dunton Hills affords a unique opportunity to provide substantial improvement to green belt assets and public access. The scale of development on a site which will have clear and recognisable long term boundaries will allow the promotion of beneficial improvements to the green belt environment.

Support

Representation ID: 15354

Received: 05/05/2016

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Colliers International

Welcomed that selected sites will be de-allocated from Green Belt to allow development to take place and provide new defensible boundaries to protect open countryside. This approach is in accordance with the NPPF. We therefore consider that Policy 9.12 is 'sound'.

Comment

Representation ID: 15355

Received: 05/05/2016

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Colliers International

In order to ensure consistency with Policy 7.2 we suggest that the wording of Policy 9.12 is amended to allow the housing mix provided to not only be based on the range of needs indicated by evidence, but also on negotiation, site constraints and development viability. We therefore request that Policy 9.12 is amended to reflect this, and consider this could be achieved through the following wording in the first paragraph:
"There will be a mix of housing on site to provide for a range of needs as indicated by evidence. The final housing mix, type and tenure will be subject to negotiation, account will be taken of the nature, constraints, character and context of the site and development viability."

Object

Representation ID: 15445

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development (except, where acknowledged, the Green Belt 'washes over' an entire village) and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. The Council should be de-allocating smaller sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 15681

Received: 05/05/2016

Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd

Agent: Barton Willmore

Policy 9.12 states that the sites allocated within the Green Belt will be expected to provide "significant" community benefits. In addition, the DLP (para 9.75) seeks to justify this requirement by stating that the loss of Green Belt is to be "repaid" through significant benefits to new and existing communities. This wording is not considered appropriate. Circumstances in which planning obligations should be sought are set out in the NPPF.

It is necessary that policies and criteria are provided for each allocation site. This will assist both the Applicant (in providing an appropriate development proposal) and decision makers (in considering a subsequent application). With regard to the above, such policies can identify new community benefits (including Use Classes) sought as part of new residential developments, to provide certainty on what deliverability expectations are.

Comment

Representation ID: 15890

Received: 11/05/2016

Respondent: Sammi Developments Ltd

Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd

This should be amended to include reference to site 175B at Brook Street/Nags Head Lane, which is deliverable early in the plan period, unconstrained, adjoins Brentwood urban area and can provide a mixed-use development.

Comment

Representation ID: 16010

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: St Modwen Properties PLC

Number of people: 2

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Whilst the requirements of the policy may only apply to housing sites it is considered that the policy should also make reference to employment sites allocated such as Brentwood Enterprise Park that will also be released from the Green Belt and will play a crucial role in meeting employment needs and providing jobs throughout the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 16039

Received: 13/05/2016

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd

This should be amended to include reference to our representation site at Bayleys Mead, which is deliverable early in the plan period, unconstrained, adjoins Brentwood urban area and can provide a high quality residential development.

Object

Representation ID: 16119

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: EA Strategic Land LLP

Agent: Iceni Projects Limited

The Council has not undertaken appropriate forms of assessment to determine whether the proposed de-allocations from the Green Belt are justified and whether the sites would continue to fulfil their role. Given the perceived high quality of the landscape in the Borough, we consider the Council has not properly assessed the effects of releasing land within the Green Belt for a garden village concept. Fundamentally, a Green Belt Review has not been undertaken that determines which areas of the Green Belt do not fulfill the functions of the Green Belt designation. The latter proposal of the policy to release land for Dunton Hills Garden Village is considered to be unjustified and ineffective in seeking to meet the objectively assessed needs of the Borough due to the Council's failure to fully assess the impact of development.

Support

Representation ID: 16156

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: Crest Nicholson

Agent: Bidwells

Agree with the policy insofar as it relates to the proposed de-allocation of the land east of Nag's Head Lane from the Green Belt and allocation for residential development of approximately 150 dwellings. We would assure the Council that its general approach to the release of land from the Green Belt in order to accommodate OAHN is justified.

Object

Representation ID: 16157

Received: 16/05/2016

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Andrew Martin Planning Ltd

9.12 is confused and an assessment of Green Belt is required, an assessment of landscape is required to advise on the most appropriate land to release for development. The assessment by Crestwood draws a key conclusion that Dunton makes a high contribution to Green Belt contribution. This evidence base document is in full contravention to the DLP. There is no evidence base in place to have influenced the selection of the DLP's proposals, nor rejection of alternatives, from a Green Belt or Landscape perspective. Countryside Propoerties has commissioned a GB review and identifies areas where GB performs less well, including around Shenfield/Brentwood town, north of Blackmore and to the east and west of West Horndon and at Herongate. The land to the east of West Horndon is not visually connected to Basildon and avoids coalescence.

Support

Representation ID: 16222

Received: 18/05/2016

Respondent: Landmere Carwash

Support land release from Green Belt with explanatory paragraph.

Support

Representation ID: 16234

Received: 18/05/2016

Respondent: Mr Paul Day

Support land release from Green Belt with explanatory paragraph.

Support

Representation ID: 16249

Received: 18/05/2016

Respondent: Time 4 pets

Support the section land release from Green Belt including the explanatory paragraphs.