Policy DM3: Residential Density
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 125
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Mr Mark Connell
The policy should state "Higher densities must not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the amenity of existing residents or the infrastructure of the borough. Good design must satisfy the requirements of the Essex design guide".
The policy should state "Higher densities must not give rise to unacceptable impacts on the amenity of existing residents or the infrastructure of the borough. Good design must satisfy the requirements of the Essex design guide".
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 183
Received: 15/08/2013
Respondent: Mr Andrew Hartless
The current character of the Hutton Mount estate should remain and be protected because it is worth preserving. This should form part of the ongoing planning process for the local area. The area as a whole will suffer if every effort is not made to retain the estate in its current form.
Myself and my young family have just moved into Greenway. A large part of the motiavtion behind the move; was to house my family in the Hutton Mount estate. We would be very keen that the current character remains as is and that it is protected and well worth preserving. This should form part of the ongoing planning process for the local area.
We believe the area as a whole will suffer if every effort is not made to retain the estate in its current form.
We also fear the station access/parking, road infrastructure and schooling already struggles to support the number of local users and must be carefully considered ahead of future development plans.
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 187
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: Inspire Consultancy
The Council should respect the covenants and rules laid down by Hutton Mount Ltd in relation to all building works and alterations to existing and new properties in Hutton Mount. The Estate has been well controlled for many years under these covenants and rules and it would be unacceptable to residents if the Council were to ignore these.
It is essential that the Council fully respects the covenants and rules laid down by Hutton Mount Ltd in relation to all building works and alterations to existing and new properties eg Hutton Mount do not allow dormer windows at second floor roof level on front elevations.
The Estate has been well controlled for many years under these covenants and rules and it would be unacceptable to residents, many who pay top rate Council Taxes, to find that the Councils Planners ignored these essential rules.
Hutton Mount Ltd supply all residents with the detailed rules and no doubt they will or possibly have already provided details to the Brentwood Council.
We do not suggest or imply that the Council allows unsuitable developments or alterations but we wish to avoid builders or developers contravening
the specific Estate rules or covenants to the detriment of the residents amenities both visual and otherwise.
Please give your careful consideration to this matter.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 531
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Ursuline Sisters
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
The Sisters generally support the provisions of Policy DM3, however consider that greater flexibility should be built in to reflect where site constraints prevent the expected densities from being achieved. Such constraints being, inter alia, topography, the presence of trees or ground conditions.
Accordingly the 2nd paragraph of the policy needs to be reworded in the following way: "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 constraints make such
densities unachievable"
See Attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 568
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc
Agent: McGough Planning Consultants
Hansteen support this policy.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 823
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd
Agent: Barton Willmore
This policy is overly prescriptive in terms of density requirements. Whilst we support the Council's aspirations to meet its housing requirements through the Local Plan and agree that developers are required to use land efficiently, a policy that sets a blanket density requirement across the Borough may create viability/deliverability issues for sites coming forward. Similarly, it may also be directly at odds with Policy DM1 in requiring higher residential densities than those in the surrounding area, affecting the general character of the area.
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 982
Received: 16/09/2013
Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch
Residential densities in areas of Special Character:
We believe that if buildings is unavoidable in such areas it should be done at low building densities. Brentwood has a very high proportion of Green Belt land and areas of 'Special Landscape Area' status
On page 79, we believe the 2nd paragraph beginning "Residential densities will be expected..." is insufficient in requirement and should explicitly state that where the surrounding area has special characteristics, e.g. high scenic value, or in or near a Special Landscape Area, then residential densities will not exceed a specific density per hectare
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1309
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Hutton Mount Limited
Agent: Iceni Projects Limited
This representation is to preserve the character and density of the Hutton Mount area. Our client supports the inclusion of density standards that accord with historic standards that were applied to the estate when first constructed. The imposition of a minimum density standards for housing should be avoided and instead the character of the existing area should guide the density of development. This is supported by NPPF guidance.
In addition, my client requests the insertion of H15 or a similarly worded policy.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1558
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Mr. David Gale
The village is characterised by larger plots, the majority backing onto open fields, creating natural habitats for birds and wildlife. We object as
a. Such a large development on the edge of the village, and on Metropolitan Green Belt, will result in the loss of open countryside, and the villages rural character
b. The beautiful aspect to the Thames, from the hill in the "area of natural beauty" (Thorndon Park), will be lost forever due to an increase in the number of visitors to the park, creating damage through overuse, and ultimately destroying the "natural beauty" of the park.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1560
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: D. Lessons
The village is characterised by larger plots, the majority backing onto open fields, creating natural habitats for birds and wildlife. We object as
a. Such a large development on the edge of the village, and on Metropolitan Green Belt, will result in the loss of open countryside, and the villages rural character
b. The beautiful aspect to the Thames, from the hill in the "area of natural beauty" (Thorndon Park), will be lost forever due to an increase in the number of visitors to the park, creating damage through overuse, and ultimately destroying the "natural beauty" of the park.
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1618
Received: 25/07/2013
Respondent: Miss Katharine Turner
Densities on plots 020 and 021 to be limited to that already built up in West Horndon (average of village). This ensures maintenance of the village's character and view from Thorndon Country Park is left intact. Heights of new builds to be limited to 3 stories to reflect this. Same proportion of social and affordable housing required as that existing in the village.
Whilst I recognise that the borough requires significant housing development, potentially in line in numbers with that identified within the Local Plan 2015-2030, I strongly object to the proposed concentration of new dwellings, over a sustained period of time, within the identified West Horndon Opportunity Area.
The construction of 200-250 new dwellings within West Horndon, every year, for 15 years, will firstly expand the town beyond recognition. Based on the current population size (which is broadly stable), the proposals would see it essentially triple in size. Whilst there are proposals for improved infrastructure, it is questionable whether this is truly sustainable within the land area proposed. The density of construction required will not be in-fitting with this beautiful countryside location, where houses are two stories tall at most, with a significant proportion of bungalows. High rise or even medium rise flats are not at all in-fitting with current town character.
Secondly, as our council, Brentwood Borough Council has the obligation to serve existing residents, not just new ones. Those who have made West Horndon their home will see a material depression in their house values as the 200-250 new dwellings come on to the market. There will be no compensation to the existing residents, which feels highly inequitable for such a small population.
Thirdly. Whilst the attractions of expanding at West Horndon are clear, one must question market demand for 200-250 new dwellings each year, in the same place, over 15 years. This demand is unproven, and highly questionable. Is it right that just under half of individuals looking to live in the entire Brentwood Borough, will want to all live in the same place? In a completely new development? It is worth highlighting on this point that the newer, small sized dwellings completed within West Horndon more recently have struggled to sell, particularly those allocated as "affordable housing" (development in question: 191 Thorndon Avenue). Simply finding one place to build nearly half of the dwellings required by the Borough does not mean people will decide to live in them - they need to be in varied locations reflecting local demand.
Lastly, your plans to allocate the bulk of all required traveller sites to West Horndon again looks highly inequitable. I would also question suitability - West Horndon has been flagged as a key area for expansion due to its location to rail links; in essence, this is land prime for development for commuters and local business workers. Travellers, with limited ties to one location, do not have these requirements and indeed it is not clear why the same land so prime for employment and fixed residential communities, also makes sense for a traveller community.
Hence in summary, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form. West Horndon is a small village that whilst can accept a decent level of development, should not be targeted at such a level. It appears that it has been viewed as a fix for the entire borough, and indeed I fear that if these plans are bourn out you will end up with a bloated stock of houses in one location with limited demand vs. supply. The solution needs to provide housing where it is actually needed, and well balanced across the Borough. This proposal fails on both counts.
[see attached comment for further submission]