Fig. 2. Representations (2016)

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 17866

Received: 05/02/2018

Respondent: Dr Richard Bristow

Representation:

Community infrastructure such as car parks, allotments etc should not be developed.

Full text:

Community infrastructure such as car parks, allotments etc should not be developed.

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 17984

Received: 25/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Andrew Pallet

Representation:

This is a rural community with enough pressure on local services, schools and roads without increasing such pressure by building too many new houses. Those built should be for the local community not developers wanting to make a fast buck.
In the wake of Brexit, I would think that the country would need to retain its food producing farmland not build on it.

Full text:

I am concerned that the proposed new homes building sites in the parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green, if they went ahead, would have a very negative effect on the infrastructure in the parish - schools, doctors, parking etc.
Since the building of the new estate at Wash Road, Mountnessing, the through traffic, particularly along Wyatts Green Road, has increased dramatically. It is a cut through to the M11 with drivers not adhering to the speed limits. Without some form of Council enforced speed control (which should be one of their priorities anyway) there will be a serious accident soon. So there is already a heavy toll on the parish roads and increasing the housing in, what is a rural area, will only make this worse, The doctors' surgery is at capacity and the schools can only suffer from overcrowding.
Whilst I appreciate that there has to be some expansion for the future, any new build homes should be for the benefit of the younger people in the parish, not some kind of free for all from people outside the Borough (Romford, Ilford, etc) with money to spend. Even more houses would have to be build for the local people and the situation will be the same in 5 years time. It will be outsiders coming in and the existing community will be penalised. Perhaps the council should make a representation to Central Government to first put a hold on the number of people coming into the country to lessen the demands on the country's housing as a whole which, invariably puts a demand on local government housing requirements, which, in turn, puts pressure on local communities like ours.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18004

Received: 02/03/2018

Respondent: Mr N McCarthy

Representation:

The LDP is doubly-flawed. In both its overall strategy and site specific detail, it fails to deliver proposals that satisfactorily meet the needs of the most important constituents in the process: existing residents.

Full text:

The LDP is doubly-flawed. In both its overall strategy and site specific detail, it fails to deliver proposals that satisfactorily meet the needs of the most important constituents in the process: existing residents.

Even if accepting the contentious Borough-wide targets for so many extra homes, achieving these by minimising development of urban areas at the expense of overwhelming use of Greenbelt land demonstrates the LDP's inadequacies. It is entirely unsympathetic to the character, environment, and people of the district.

Despite the Plan being underway since 2009, the 2018 draft has evidently been hastily assembled following Ministerial warnings to the Borough Council over undue delay. Proof of this rushed and perfunctory aspect of the Plan is shown by the late inclusion of new sites in the Parish of Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green.

Previously deemed unsuitable for development in previous drafts, four separate parcels of Greenbelt land are now allocated to be housing estates within the Parish. I completely concur with my local Parish Council's submission to the LDP consultation in which it comprehensively establishes many valid reasons to scrap these proposals.

Further to the points covered in the Blackmore Parish Council submission, the LDP fails to take account of the important differences in employment and further educational opportunities for residents in rural districts against those in urban areas. These demographic and social disparities have consequential impacts on individual, family and community life.

Understanding these differences should have informed decision-making for the draft Plan. As that clearly was not the case, a revised version of the document must acknowledge this omission and ensure measures are taken to redress the situation.

There is no unfilled general employment availability in the rural areas, at least that is the undoubted position in this Parish, Therefore each additional household consisting of work-age adults and/or people in further education, will further contribute to undesirable 'surburbanisation' of the villages. In many of these cases it would entail a first commute by car - bus provision is inadequate - followed by a second commute from a transport hub to their destination.

In contrast, the Plan should be reconfigured so that the greater number of new dwellings are within easy access - preferably walking distance - of railway stations, bus interchanges, and significant commercial, industrial, and office premises. Dismally, instead of taking this common-sense approach, the Plan has been devised to produce a final reduction in the actual percentage of homes in the central area. The Plan fails to maximise the potential for new build high-density housing and tower block apartments along with conversion of existing buildings in the contracting retail urban districts. These are already based close to all the amenities lacking in the rural areas.

The draft LDP contains serious and irreversible adverse consequences for the rural and semi-rural parts of the Borough. It is a poorly conceived document and I wish to record my objection. It should be rejected by the members and officers of Brentwood Council as not fit for purpose.

Support

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18018

Received: 04/03/2018

Respondent: Dr Philip Gibbs

Representation:

No mention is made of the Strategic Growth Consultation or the Dunton Garden Suburb consultation, both of which are still relevant parts of the evidence base. The previous Reg 18 consultations related to the Local Plan have drawn overwhealming objection to the development of Dunton Hills. Many valid reasons were given by residents and neighbouring councils. This has been largely ignored by Brentwood Council who have only increased the scale of proposed development in the area.

Full text:

No mention is made of the Strategic growth Consultation or the Dunton Garden Suburb consultation, both of which are still relevant parts of the evidence base.

The previous reg 18 consultations related to the Local Plan have drawn overwhealming objection to the development of Dunton Hills. Many valid reasons were given. by residents and neighbouring councils. This has been largely ignored by Brentwood Council who have only increased the scale of proposed development in the area.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18029

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Daly

Representation:

The plan shows no clear correlation between the housing needs (ie 1 bed , 2bed , 3 bed , 4 bed, flats or houses ) in given areas verses the proposed use of site in particular the Brentwood town centre sites

Full text:

The plan shows no clear correlation between the housing needs (ie 1 bed , 2bed , 3 bed , 4 bed, flats or houses ) in given areas verses the proposed use of site in particular the Brentwood town centre sites

Support

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18110

Received: 08/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Gordon Bird

Representation:

Its good to be able to review and comment on the draft plan and hope my comments make a difference

Full text:

Its good to be able to review and comment on the draft plan and hope my comments make a difference

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18149

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: - - -

Representation:

I wish to comment on your current local plan with regard to building all these houses and removing car parks. We now have to wait four to five weeks to get a doctors appointment, this will increase as more families come to town. Reducing car parks will only kill off the High St. I consider this plan to be unacceptable.

Full text:

I wish to comment on your current local plan with regard to building all these houses and removing car parks. We now have to wait four to five weeks to get a doctors appointment, this will increase as more families come to town. Reducing car parks will only kill off the High St. I consider this plan to be unacceptable.

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18476

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Beryl Joyce Clark

Representation:

The document states that there has been a review of representations (Page 3 para. 5), but it is my understanding that there has been no detailed or formal response to representations made by the Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association since March 2016. Nor is there any evidence in the draft Plan that PLNRA responses to the plan have been taken into account. Sustainability and technical evidence submitted has not been analysed and given consideration. There is not an up-to-date document detailing the representations made in 2016, other than a reference to the number of responses made.

Full text:

Re Sites 044/178: The document states that there has been a review of representations (Page 3 para. 5), but it is my understanding that there has been no detailed or formal response to representations made by the Priests Lane Neighbourhood Residents Association since March 2016. Nor is there any evidence in the draft Plan that PLNRA responses to the plan have been taken into account. Sustainability and technical evidence submitted has not been analysed and given consideration. Although there are references to previous consultation exercises (Page 4 para. 7), there is not an up-to-date document detailing the representations made in 2016, other than a reference to the number of responses made. The document refers to protecting the Green Belt and only building on brown field land (Page 4, para. 9). However, sites 044/178 in Priests Lane are greenfield protected urban space sites and attracted a high number of objections but these sites are not mentioned. Why is this? There is no evidence as to why sites 044/178 are preferred sites (Page 6, para. 14). The site assessment appears weak with no evidence of robustness or balance. The original plan was for the development of 135 homes and this has now been reduced to 95. However, the site is still unsuitable for this number of homes. There is very limited access and air pollution - which is already high - would become worse. It would most probably generate another 150/200 cars trying to use Priests Lane increasing congestion which is already considerable at times. This would be in addition to a likely increase in traffic due to developments in central Brentwood and Officers Meadow. Priests Lane is very narrow and walking down it would become even more difficult with an increase in the number of cars using it. It is necessary to cross the road (more than once) to reach the pavement which itself is very narrow. There seems little detail on infrastructure such as drainage and sewage in the area. This can already be a problem - there are frequently temporary traffic lights in Priests Lane due to one utility company or other having to undertake repairs. There would of course be increased pressure on doctors' surgeries and schools. It can already be difficult to get an appointment with a doctor; although the plan acknowledges this it is difficult to predict the actual need and is likely to be under estimated. When this land was previously considered for development the proposals were rejected as objections raised were considered reasonable. What has changed? I understand that site 044 was considered too wet for development and to develop the land now would undoubtedly affect the water table. I believe that many residents in Priests Lane already suffer flooding in their gardens. What steps are being proposed to prevent this problem becoming worse? Page 7, para. 18D refers to enhancing green infrastructure networks and improving the quality, range and connectiveness of the Borough's natural green assets. It is difficult to see how this objective will be helped by developing a protected greenfield site.