Infrastructure Planning
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 19935
Received: 24/05/2018
Respondent: Mrs. Pamela Bennett
More homes will negatively impact on utilities.
I am much disturbed by the proposal to build so many new homes on may vulnerable sites.
Quite apart from the usual caveats of traffic, air pollution, open space and wildlife. There are so many other things to be considered.
For example more houses mean more traffic, which means more wear and tear on our roads, which are already in a perilous state. Then there is the question of utilities, and schooling.
Finally where will all the doctors be to care for so many extra patients? It sometimes takes weeks to see a GP as it is. I am quite sur that local A&E departments will not be wanting extra attendances!
I urge the Council to re-think this all very carefully. There must be a better, more beneficial way to deal with this.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 19936
Received: 24/05/2018
Respondent: Mrs. Pamela Bennett
More homes will impact on schooling.
I am much disturbed by the proposal to build so many new homes on may vulnerable sites.
Quite apart from the usual caveats of traffic, air pollution, open space and wildlife. There are so many other things to be considered.
For example more houses mean more traffic, which means more wear and tear on our roads, which are already in a perilous state. Then there is the question of utilities, and schooling.
Finally where will all the doctors be to care for so many extra patients? It sometimes takes weeks to see a GP as it is. I am quite sur that local A&E departments will not be wanting extra attendances!
I urge the Council to re-think this all very carefully. There must be a better, more beneficial way to deal with this.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 19937
Received: 24/05/2018
Respondent: Mrs. Pamela Bennett
Where will all the doctors be to care for so many extra patients? It sometimes takes weeks to see a GP as it is. I am quite sure that local A&E departments will not be wanting extra attendances!
I am much disturbed by the proposal to build so many new homes on may vulnerable sites.
Quite apart from the usual caveats of traffic, air pollution, open space and wildlife. There are so many other things to be considered.
For example more houses mean more traffic, which means more wear and tear on our roads, which are already in a perilous state. Then there is the question of utilities, and schooling.
Finally where will all the doctors be to care for so many extra patients? It sometimes takes weeks to see a GP as it is. I am quite sur that local A&E departments will not be wanting extra attendances!
I urge the Council to re-think this all very carefully. There must be a better, more beneficial way to deal with this.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 19946
Received: 24/05/2018
Respondent: Mr & Mrs Ray
We know the town needs more housing but the road network to cope with the extra traffic new housing will bring , the congestion will only get worse. If we lose the car parks where can we park in the town. We need better roads.
We are replying to a circular received by the Liberals concerning future housing in Brentwood. We have lived in Brentwood for one 35 years. We know the town needs more housing but we have not got enough schools, doctors and the road network to cope with the extra traffic new housing will bring , the congestion will only get worse. If we lose the car parks where can we park in the town. We need better roads.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 19955
Received: 14/03/2018
Respondent: Rochford District Council
Rochford District Council raises no objection to Brentwood's approach to infrastructure planning at this time but would like to highlight the need to carefully consider the impact of planned growth on the A127, A130 and A13, which all form part of the strategic road network for South Essex. The Council highlights the need to consider the impact of developments on these roads, as well as the wider strategic network, and would support further exploration of the mitigation and improvement measures needed to make such growth sustainable. The impact of the Lower Thames Crossing proposals should also be considered.
Thank you for inviting Rochford District Council to make comments on the Brentwood Borough Council Preferred Site Allocations consultation. Please find the Council's comments below. Could you please confirm receipt and acceptance of these comments in due course. Strategic Objectives The Council supports Brentwood's identified strategic objectives, in principle, however would like to highlight the need to ensure that the impacts of the planned growth and wider strategy on other authorities in South Essex, including Rochford District, are considered in detail. It is expected that the collaborative work currently being undertaken at the sub-regional level, which includes both Rochford District Council and Brentwood Borough Council, will help to facilitate these cross-boundary considerations. Approach to Housing and Objectively Assessed Need Rochford District Council supports, in principle, Brentwood's approach to meeting its housing needs, but would like to raise the need to consider the impact of its proposed housing allocations within the wider context of South Essex. This is particularly pertinent in relation to the Dunton Hills garden village which could potentially be sited close to other proposed housing locations in the neighbouring authorities of Basildon and Thurrock. Rochford District Council would advocate a joined up approach to fully consider the potential impacts of this growth, and in particular, would like to highlight the need for Brentwood Borough Council to consider the impacts of this growth on the authorities and communities beyond it boundaries, including Rochford District. Approach to Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Rochford District Council supports Brentwood's approach to meeting its Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs in full and continues to support the close working of the Essex Planning Officer's Association towards effective planning for Gypsy and Traveller provision into the future across Essex. Approach to Infrastructure Planning Rochford District Council raises no objection to Brentwood's approach to infrastructure planning at this time but would like to highlight the need to carefully consider the impact of planned growth on the A127, A130 and A13, which all form part of the strategic road network for South Essex. The Council highlights the need to consider the impact of developments on these roads, as well as the wider strategic network, and would support further exploration of the mitigation and improvement measures needed to make such growth sustainable. The impact of the Lower Thames Crossing proposals should also be considered. Approach to Economic Development and Jobs Rochford District Council raises no objection to Brentwood's approach to economic development and growth but would highlight the need to carefully consider the impact of the planned growth on neighbouring authorities and the strategic highway network. Again, the Council would support further exploration of the mitigation and improvement measures needed to make such growth sustainable. Approach to Duty to Co-operate Rochford District Council raises no objection to Brentwood's fulfilment of the Duty to Co-operate, but would highlight the need to continue to work collaboratively with all other South Essex authorities on cross-boundary strategic planning matters, further to the intentions of the South Essex 2050 Memorandum of Understanding.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 19966
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: Basildon Borough Council
Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) accompanying the Preferred Site Allocations 2018 consultation document, includes extensive information on the current levels of infrastructure provision and forecasts needs linked to development pressures, across a number of key topic areas and allows for a live update. This is the same principle and approach to the Basildon Borough IDP, and is supported by Basildon Borough Council. In regards to DHGV given the proximity to Basildon may need to support the upgrade of services and facilities in Basildon. We do not believe that enough work has been carried out to determine the relevant infrastructure requirements.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 19975
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: Chelmsford City Council
Overall CCC supports Brentwood Borough Council's proposed approach to housing and employment allocations whichare unlikely to have any obvious adverse cross-boundary impacts on Chelmsford. However, it is crucial that the allocations are supported by the appropriate infrastructure, in particular highway and transportation schemes due to Brentwood's location on the A12/Greater Anglia road and rail corridor. It is noted that the Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan is a working document and transport requirements are yet to be specified. CCC expects that when the emerging Plan has progressed to Regulation 19 (expected late summer/early autumn 2018) the IDP will have been updated accordingly.
Chelmsford City Council (CCC) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Brentwood's Draft Local Plan Preferred Site Allocations to help influence the emerging document and monitor the key cross-boundary and strategic issues that affect CCC's administrative area. CCC welcomes Brentwood Borough Council's decision to adopt a higher OAHN of 380dpa in light of the latest evidence and in anticipation of MHCLG introducing a standardised approach to calculating OAHN using the 2016 household projections when published. It is noted that the provision of Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation has changed in line with the National Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) and the Essex wide GTAA undertaken in 2017. On transit sites, CCC acknowledges the GTAA's recommendations to engage, through the Duty to Cooperate, with other Essex authorities in the future to review the need for transit sites. Further work on this is also being undertaken by Essex County Council to consider the need for these sites across Essex as a whole. CCC supports the increase in employment land allocations to meet Brentwood Borough Council's overall forecasted employments needs. Overall CCC supports Brentwood Borough Council's proposed approach to housing and employment allocations which are unlikely to have any obvious adverse cross-boundary impacts on Chelmsford. However, it is crucial that the allocations are supported by the appropriate infrastructure, in particular highway and transportation schemes due to Brentwood's location on the A12/Greater Anglia road and rail corridor. It is noted that the Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan is a working document and transport requirements are yet to be specified. CCC expects that when the emerging Plan has progressed to Regulation 19 (expected late summer/early autumn 2018) the IDP will have been updated accordingly.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20001
Received: 28/03/2018
Respondent: Thurrock Borough Council
Both the Preferred Site Allocations document and IDP only contain assessments of infrastructure focusing in particular upon education and health. Significant elements of infrastructure such as transport and Green infrastructure are not included. The assessments of infrastructure for Dunton Hills are not currently included and it is stated this work is still subject to ongoing options under master planning for the site. Significant elements of the infrastructure evidence base are still required in order to justify the overall level of growth, the approach to the spatial strategy and the sites allocations being proposed by Brentwood Council in the local plan.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20010
Received: 28/03/2018
Respondent: Thurrock Borough Council
The A127 is at capacity at peak times and does not represent a better road transport alternative to the A12. Any larger development is going to require additional road infrastructure investment to improve access. Further work to understand the capacity and improvements required is being undertaken by the Local authorities and Highway England.
See attached.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20022
Received: 25/05/2018
Respondent: Mrs Sylvia Pascoe
I am aware that the school, shops, roads and level of street lighting and pathways is not sufficient in Blackmore for new homes. If new development were brought to the village it would almost certainly damage the characteristics that make Blackmore such a nice place to live.
Strongly object to the proposed development of 94 houses in Blackmore.
Having lived in the village for over 40 years, I feel strongly that the village will not be able to cope with this new development and retain its current character and charm,
In fact being a member of the community for so long gives me a very good understanding of the current infrastructure and facilities within the village and I strongly believe that these would all need improving before any development should take place.
I am aware of the current roads and pathways that need pot holes filling. I am aware that the school, shops, roads and level of street lighting and pathways is not sufficient - but if it were brought to the village it would almost certainly damage the characteristics that make Blackmore such a nice place to live.
The village already benefits from tourists and cyclists that come to the tea rooms etc - but this could be lost.
I would particularly be concerned by the presence of extra traffic on the roads and destruction of local wildlife. AS a dog walker in the village, these issues are important to me.
I understand that the new development also require a certain level of affordable housing - this too can create social problems within the village and there is certainly not adequate policing services in the village. We would have to rely on the already stretched services from Brentwood.
I believe that these and many other concerns are shared by the community - and I a, sure this will not be the only letter you receive highlighting these points.
I hope you consider these points about the development and look at alternative possibilities.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20038
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: National Highways
The proposed development locations could have a notable impact on the SRN, particularly on M25 Junction 28 and Junction 29, as well as A12 Junction 12. The flow diagrams provided within the LP evidence base appendices demonstrate that approximately 500 and 1,200 additional vehicles per hour could route via Junction 28 and 29 respectively as a result of LP development. Furthermore, there is predicted to be a material impact at A12 Junction 12, although the flow diagrams were not clear enough to calculate an accurate total.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20042
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: National Highways
It is important that all out of town sites are well connected to the public transport network, both in terms of bus provision and access to nearby rail stations to ensure longer distance strategic trips have an alternative to private vehicle use. Whilst this approach is supported through Policy the LP does not provide specific public transport details and therefore the extent of the intended public transport provision is unknown.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20043
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: National Highways
Whilst specific details of the potential public transport provision at individual sites or locations are limited, there is discussion of a proposed Green Travel Route. This route is intended to provide better Borough links for strategic development allocations outside the Brentwood urban area, which is welcomed as the existing public transport provision to these locations is likely to currently be limited. Without a step change in provision these strategic development locations could result in a significant increase in vehicles on the highway network.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20044
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: National Highways
Whilst we support a public transport strategy for the strategic development sites, it is unclear what the exact provision may be. It is recommended that further details regarding the specific public transport provision is outlined within the LP and how the council consider this could affect mode share for residents and employees at the development sites.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20045
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: National Highways
Crossrail could have an impact on the mode share of residents and employees within Brentwood and that the scheme may encourage a greater rail mode share, which could reduce the reliance on private vehicle use. It should be noted that the Council will consider the scope for 'park and walk' schemes. Depending where the 'park and walk' sites are located, this could result in an increase in vehicle trips in certain sections of the highway network. It is important that any implications for the SRN are fully considered by Brentwood Borough Council.
See attached.
Support
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20046
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: National Highways
Broadly agree with the approach to funding transport infrastructure outlined within the LP, through the pooling of contributions secured through Planning Obligations and, once adopted, the Council's Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (CIL), further details of the specific infrastructure schemes that may be required to support development across the Borough are not provided within the LP at this stage.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20047
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: National Highways
An Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) has not been prepared to accompany the LP and without this I can see the plan being challenged.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20049
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: National Highways
The LP does not provide any details of infrastructure funding, which may be unknown at this stage if the specific infrastructure schemes that are required have not yet been identified. It is important that once the schemes are identified that the funding method for each is outlined, including any Central Government or Local Government funding that is available, the amount that could be collected from developers and any shortfall that could occur. It is recommended that an IDP is prepared to provide further details regarding the infrastructure provision and funding.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20056
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: London Borough of Havering
The commitment to supporting infrastructure growth through sustainable infrastructure planning (Priority b on page 7) is welcome. Nevertheless, in this regard, it is noted that paragraphs 84 and 92 of the document say that the issue of how education needs arising from the Garden Village are still being assessed. It is important that these matters are resolved and properly explained in the Proposed Submission version document.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20101
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Community Health Partnerships (NHS)
Social care for both adults and children is provided by Essex County Council (ECC). This covers a range of functions and services and is provided by a range of different providers. Essex County Council can make specific provision of built infrastructure for care services, e.g. extra care.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20102
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Community Health Partnerships (NHS)
Responsibility for public health was moved out of the NHS into local government in April 2013. Health and Wellbeing Boards (HWBs) promote co-operation from leaders in the health and social care system to improve the health and wellbeing of their local population and reduce health inequalities. HWBs are responsible for producing a Joint Health & Wellbeing Strategies (JHWS), Joint Strategic Needs Assessments (JSNA) and Pharmaceutical Needs Assessments (PNA) for the Basildon borough area.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20109
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Community Health Partnerships (NHS)
Infrastructure Costs: NHS England has advised against the use of standard cost estimates as costs can rise over time and can be out of sync when it comes to delivering the infrastructure on the ground. Whilst the IDP has used standard cost estimates in order to gauge the overall funding requirements to improve capacity in health services, the IDP is intended to be a 'living' document that will be updated over the lifetime of the Local Plan and therefore the costs contained in this section come with the caveat that they may be subject to change over time.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20110
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Community Health Partnerships (NHS)
CCG has provided details of optimal space requirements for a number of Practices, Clinics and other CCG Premises in Brentwood, including details of capital required to create additional floor space at each one. The cost averages out at approximately £2,300/m² to improve, reconfigure or build new primary care infrastructure. If all the space requirements to meet existing capacity deficits were to be completed, this would require approximately £4m. For the proposed Strategic Allocation, if we take the CCG's assumption that for every additional 1,750 people 120m² of additional space is required, the approximate costs for the upgrades are approximately £3m.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 20113
Received: 21/03/2018
Respondent: Community Health Partnerships (NHS)
Funding Sources: NHS capital funding is extremely limited. For the provision of new healthcare facilities there are various non NHS capital funding options. Revenue consequences of any infrastructure works would need to be carefully considered and all primary care estates projects are subject to the NHS England prioritisation and approval process. Delivery of, or contributions to, new health care facilities will be sought from developers as part of mitigation and is a prerequisite to delivery of sustainable development.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 21251
Received: 06/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Alan Dodd
Number of people: 2
Epping Forest is proposing to develop 39 dwellings within close proximity to Blackmore and this will have an impact on the infrastructure and services within Brentwood. there is no mention of this within the LDP. Therefore the plan needs to consider the impacts through DtC.
Objection to the proposed development for 96 dwellings on Green belt in Blackmore. It is stated that the LDP seeks to protect the Green Belt and local characteristics, but are we seeing the beginning of the end of 'the Green Ribbon around London'. The Green Belt provides a clean air healthy environment for those who live in the community, including wildlife, but also for the pleasure of the hundreds of people who visit regularly just to get away from urban sprawl. Any proposal to build on Green Belt to will eventually spell the end to this precious gift to every man woman and child in Essex. The village of Blackmore, steeped in history, is described as a larger village fitting into Settlement category 3, but it only has one shop, one small primary school already working to capacity and an inadequate public transport system. The sewage system is already groaning with the existing population and there is a risk of flooding. There are no local secondary schools, or local health facilities, and virtually no local employment. All this means that the village is heavily car dependant, with most working population travelling distances daily to Essex towns, or to stations to commute to London. All shopping is a similar journey. The proposal to buildings on Green Belt would substantially increase the current population and be a disaster for the infrastructure of the village. In the LDP there is a no mention of two Brown Belt developments (Fingrith Hall lane and Woolmongers lane) both within 1.1 miles of the village that are planned by Epping Council and would add a further 39 dwellings in the vicinity. The closeness of these developments will without doubt affect Blackmore in both infrastructure and sustainability. Under the 'Duty to Cooperate' between Councils, and in the interest of transparency the effect of these two developments must be reviewed and be taken into consideration during the consultation period.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22100
Received: 07/02/2018
Respondent: Ms Denise Kennedy
Road and pavement infrastructure improvement needed.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22104
Received: 28/02/2018
Respondent: C. Penn
Number of people: 6
In the main the plan seems quite good and we know more home have to be built. However, we are concerned about GPS surgeries. The cottage hospital should have a walk in clinic, Harold Wood has one. It would take stress from GPs and main hospitals.
In the main the plan seems quite good and we know more home have to be built. However, we are concerned about GPS surgeries. The cottage hospital should have a walk in clinic, Harold Wood has one. It would take stress from GPs and main hospitals.
We are concerned about parking.
Will any of the new build flats/houses be really affordable? They are often classes as luxury.
We have been told we will have another superstore and a cinema in Brentwood. We need them and more retail shops. Empty ones become eating places which is a joke. There are many elderly people in Brentwood that so not shop on line so to get a choice of shops or they go to Billericay, Romford or Lakeside which is not acceptable.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22105
Received: 28/02/2018
Respondent: C. Penn
Number of people: 6
We are concerned about parking
In the main the plan seems quite good and we know more home have to be built. However, we are concerned about GPS surgeries. The cottage hospital should have a walk in clinic, Harold Wood has one. It would take stress from GPs and main hospitals.
We are concerned about parking.
Will any of the new build flats/houses be really affordable? They are often classes as luxury.
We have been told we will have another superstore and a cinema in Brentwood. We need them and more retail shops. Empty ones become eating places which is a joke. There are many elderly people in Brentwood that so not shop on line so to get a choice of shops or they go to Billericay, Romford or Lakeside which is not acceptable.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22116
Received: 10/03/2018
Respondent: Corrinne Bartell
Object to the plan because it has no solutions for the additional traffic that would be generated. Just making a statement that houses will be along traffic corridors does not provide a solution. S106 contributions will not provide for the strategic level of road improvement required and it is clear this government would not provide funding either. The plan also refers to improved public transport including buses but bus services area already being cut because Essex County Council is reducing subsides due to inadequate funding from central government.
See attached.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22146
Received: 21/06/2018
Respondent: Mr David Harman
I object at a fundamental level to the Draft plan in its present form. The plan completely fails to take into account the infrastructure demands that the building programme would have. Should consider roads, hospitals, GP Surgeries, school places, power supplies, water supplies, not to mention digital communications facilities that the Government claims to be so interested in. This nonsense position, though possibly accurate, will generate a total disaster should the Council be mad enough to implement the Draft Plan.
I object at a fundamental level to the Draft plan in its present form. The plan completely fails to take into account the infrastructure demands that the building programme would have.
You will say that planning law does not include such 'trivia' as roads, hospitals, GP Surgeries, school places, power supplies, water supplies, not to mention digital communications facilities that the Government claims to be so interested in. This nonsense position, though possibly accurate, will generate a total disaster should the Council be mad enough to implement the Draft Plan.
The over dependence on precious green belt is equally abhorrent, which can only be to bribe the developers by doubling the profits that they will make. Not a single hectare of green belt land should be taken until the very last fragment of brown field is exhausted. It should not matter who the owner of the brown field land is, if it is being sat on by landowners waiting for better prices then that is what compulsory purchase is for.
Please rethink the Draft Plan to make it less disastrous for the Borough.