Spatial Strategy
Support
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 21250
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Timothy Webb
Sites such as William Hunter Way, West Horndon Industrial Estate, Wates Way, Brentwood Station Car Park, Western Road, Westbury Road, Chatham Way, former Ingatestone Garden Centre, adjacent former works depot are far more appropriate for residential development. Serious consideration should be given to increasing both the overall density and proportion of flats in order to fulfil the housing requirement. At the inner Brentwood locations, this should include building to a height of several storeys.
See attached.
Comment
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 21258
Received: 05/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Timothy Webb
Further Brownfield sites should be identified in order to avoid building on the Green Belt. Consideration should also be given to building flats above existing town centre shops and other commercial premises.
See attached.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 21972
Received: 23/03/2018
Respondent: Maureen Laming
Object to the number of housing proposed along Chelmsford. Has no thought given to medical care, schools, transport problems by the Tory members? The whole project as planned is stupid. It takes weeks to see a doctor in Shenfield, local schools are full already. New building regulations allow buyers to do whatever they like and car parking is abysmal. Bungalows become houses overnight. We have to accommodate many people that do not act sensibly in this new area before we become a densely run down place.
See attached.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22009
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: Mr Adam Staples
Land behind shops on Hatch Road: no fixed borders so will encroach on Green Belt. Nice rural area full of wildlife. Too much traffic in Hatch Road already. Dangerous road already. Keep Hatch Road safe and rural, too much parking on our road already.
See attached.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22013
Received: 06/03/2018
Respondent: Mrs Hazel Town
28% increase in Blackmore is overdevelopment in a conservation village of great beauty, especially compared to other areas in the Borough.
See attached.
Support
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22023
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: Mr. David Sisley
Use of Brownfield land in the Green belt supported
1. Use of Brownfield land in the Green belt support. 2. Proposal for Pligrims Hatch supported. 3. Site Ref 010 Sow n' Grow Nursery site supported for housing land allocation as a Brownfield Green Belt urban extension. 4. Policy 9.11 for redevelopment of brownfield land in the Green Belt is supported with explanatory paragraphs. 5. Policy 9.12 is supported for land release from the Green Belt with explanatory paragraph. 6. Supported where the Sow N Grown site is listed no. 010 Approx dwellings could be higher.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22029
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: Mrs Kim Smith
Object on grounds of excessive development in Blackmore Village - 28% increase in houses in the Village. Of the proposed sites listed in Green Belt, Larger Village, nearly 70% of the proposed houses are in Blackmore and Tipps Cross Ward (116 houses of a total of 169). This is an excessive and unwarranted increase for this small historic village which cannot be justified. In contrast neighbouring villages such as Doddinghurst have no proposed sites for development.
See attached.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22031
Received: 12/03/2018
Respondent: Mrs Kim Smith
Blackmore is a relatively isolated village with inadequate infrastructure, poor public transport links, served by minor roads and narrow country lanes. There are already problems with parking and congestion particularly around the village shops and school. Increased traffic would cause disturbance and disruption to the village. Major development would require significant upgrades to drainage and foul water system, utilities and communications. The local primary school is at capacity. There is no GP surgery within the parish boundary, the nearest GP is full to capacity. There is flooding problems around Red Rose Lane which will be exacerbate by proposed development.
See attached.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22060
Received: 07/06/2018
Respondent: Mr and Mrs David and Alison Bowyer
After much looking and understanding of more homes required in Brentwood, we believe Dunton Gardens Village up to A128 only was a good option, for West Horndon, including industrial estate . Much to our horror and bewilderment of our Council they are now showing all of West Horndon around and up to the A128. Where and how has this happened? We oppose this totally and seem to still believe that Brentwood Council see us at West Horndon as the poor relative and are a useful dumping ground for Hutton, Herongate and Shenfield. Who you wouldn't like to offend!
After much looking and understanding of more homes required in Brentwood, we believe Dunton Gardens Village up to A128 only was a good option, for West Horndon. This included the industrial estate being used for more homes. Much to our horror and bewilderment of our Council they are now showing all of West Horndon around and up to the A128. Where and how has this happened?>! See attached print off from the SA. We oppose this totally and seem to still believe that Brentwood Council see us at West Horndon as the poor relative and are a useful dumping ground for Hutton, Herongate and Shenfield. Who you wouldn't like to offend!
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22117
Received: 10/03/2018
Respondent: Corrinne Bartell
Object to removing car parking spaces in the Town Centre, how is this in line with strategic objective 9 which refers to strengthening Brentwood Town Centre
See attached.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22147
Received: 21/06/2018
Respondent: Mr David Harman
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.
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.
Object
Preferred Site Allocations 2018
Representation ID: 22152
Received: 21/06/2018
Respondent: Mrs Catherine Walker-Green
The local area and it's conservation / green belt areas are what makes Billericay a great place to live- removing these will increase pressure on the environment, fundamentally impact the essence of Billericay and remove access and education opportunities for our children - it will also fundamentally impact the local nature, habitats - our world will not survive if our eco-system is not sustained.
Dear Sir/ Madam,
I object fully to the above mentioned plans which will detrimentally impact Billericay and the surrounding areas. My objection is on the following basis:
- The local infrastructure and services are already unable to cope with current population demands especially local roads, access roads in and out of Billericay, schools, hospital and doctor availability, train services in particular
- Welcoming additional travellers by providing specific sites is nonsensical. It shows a lack of respect for current residents. It is well known that when travellers are in an area, residents feel a detrimental impact through damage, violence, crime, general demeanour on local areas. The population of travellers should be constrained and reduced and not encouraged - especially in an area which has a thriving youthful population in which parents are tirelessly striving to bring their children up with good manners and as valuable citizens. Travellers do not provide the same back to communities, introduce lack of security to areas, make current residents feel scared and intimidated - this is not fair. Our council rates are astronomically high to live in a nice area - these rates are not in line with having a traveller community within the area and will be fraudulent if travellers are formally introduced to the local area. The government should expend effort on jailing / removing the travellers rather than encouraging.
- The local area and it's conservation / green belt areas are what makes Billericay a great place to live- removing these will increase pressure on the environment, fundamentally impact the essence of Billericay and remove access and education opportunities for our children - it will also fundamentally impact the local nature, habitats - our world will not survive if our eco-system is not sustained.
We look forward to your due consideration, review and subsequent dismissal of the plans.
Yours faithfully,