Fig. 8. Housing Growth

Showing comments and forms 1 to 8 of 8

Support

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18288

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Hermes Investment Management

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Representation:

Hermes Investment Management support the allocation shown by "Brownfield Land within settlement boundary - other locations"

Full text:

Hermes Investment Management support the allocation shown by "Brownfield Land within settlement boundary - other locations"

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18573

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Joshua Campbell

Representation:

The LDP shows land miss represented as Brownfield when it is most certainly Greenbelt in the current house market.

Full text:

1. The building of unaffordable houses for people and destroying Greenbelt for monetary gain for the developers is unacceptable & immoral. The LDP shows land miss represented as Brownfield when it is most certainly Greenbelt in the current house market, householder need to upgrade by 200,000 pounds at least, this housing is not affordable for our younger generations

2. Our precious greenbelt provides fresh air alleviating pollution from east the A127, as records show the A127 is exceeding levels of pollution & there is now talk of emission charge ! The woodland & Greenbelt are needed to counteract these pollution levels.

3. These areas have inhabitants of precious Wildlife & will be adversely affected & lost forever -sites of SSI are in place for a reason as is protected Greenbelt -this can not be the allocated

4.All of our facilities are stretched -overburdened roads , GP surgeries ,schools , hospitals -A127 , A128 & Billericay roads are at a standstill certain times of the day -roads are at breaking point . There is no infrastructure for these said unaffordable
Houses. The area is highly congested already causing pollution

5.The figures are completely manipulated why If this is a local plan it is common knowledge that the homes are for executive for those coming from outside if the area .

6.the actual numbers of houses needed is not quantifiable not necessary or needed with the EU brexit we have no idea how many people will be here after these figures you have grabbed we're prior to the referendum last year

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18741

Received: 06/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Denis Whitton

Representation:

Insufficient infrastructure and services (roads, parking, schools, healthcare facilities) to accommodate the level of growth proposed. All the green space you are going to destroy and the villages that will just be part of Brentwood rather than a unique village.

Full text:

The whole idea is madness, the infrastructure for that many houses and people is not there, The roads, the schools, GP's, parking etc...is not in place. Brentwood area as a whole is already swamped with cars and people. We already have a lot of schools in the area which gridlock the roads at different times of the day. For example Shenfield school as fleets of buses and cars blocking the roads around the Chelmsford road yet you want to build hundreds more houses next door! If you build on all the car parks around Brentwood where will people park? Will you be building another hospital and surgery for the thousands of new patients? What about roads where are you going to build them? All the green space you are going to destroy and the villages that will just be part of Brentwood rather than a unique village. Get a grip the plans are terrible.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19320

Received: 06/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Geoff Sanders

Representation:

The net homes allocation at Priests Lane appears small taken as a total of planned building across Brentwood, the actual percentage of net build at sites 044/178 compared to Brentwood Urban Area net build is 8.25% which is a much higher percentage of net build in the Urban Area net build category. Comment on the planned 36% uplift on required housing has been made earlier, it is now clear this represents an net uplift of 2109 dwellings over the life of the plan. These 2109 dwellings would then be built in the hope of driving down house/rental prices.

Full text:

Page 3 Para. 5: While this document is primarily a consultation on sites, we have also updated our vision, strategic objectives and spatial strategy to reflect progress made on the technical evidence and review of representations. Comment/Objection: Whilst there may have been a review of representations, there has been no formal, detailed response to representations made by PLNRA since March 2016. Page 4 Para. 7: Evidence in its broadest sense means anything that informs the plan-making process, including the Sustainability Appraisal, Duty to Cooperate discussion, consultation responses, and technical evidence. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence in any section of the Draft Local Plan that PLNRA responses to the plan have been taken into account and that detailed sustainability and technical evidence submitted have been analysed and given appropriate consideration. Page 4 Para. 8: A Consultation Statement detailing previous representations has been published alongside this document. Comment/Objection: There are various references to previous historic consultation exercises undertaken, but an up-to-date document detailing the 2016 representations has not been found yet, other than reference to the numbers of responses made. Page 4/5 Para 9: Support for protecting the Green Belt and environmental assets, and building upon brownfield land only were strong themes in the consultation feedback. A number of stakeholders objected to the Dunton Hills Garden Village in principle and the extent of development along the A127 corridor. A wide range of comments were also raised on the need for additional plan evidence. Comment/Objection: Sites 044/178 are greenfield protected urban space sites. The Dunton Hills development is mentioned specifically, but the Priests Lane sites, which attracted a high proportion of objections, are not mentioned. Page 6 Para 14: In arriving at a list of preferred site allocations, we have developed a site assessment process. This is robust, balanced and wide-ranging in terms of technical evidence material for each allocated and discounted site. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence as to why sites 044/178 are preferred sites other than, presumably, they are available. The site assessment (Page 72) is shallow and weak. There is no evidence of robustness or balance. Page 6 Para 15: A key part of the evidence base is the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)...Its role is to promote sustainable development...The SA allows us to consider opportunities to improve environmental, social and economic conditions in the local area and identify how to mitigate the impact of development. Comment/Objection: To what extent is there a specific Sustainabilty Appraisal of sites 044/178? How will environmental, social and economic conditions be improved in Priests Lane and how will the impact of development be mitigated? There is no evidence provided as answers to these questions. Page 6 Para 17: Refers to a Habitats Regulations Assessment screening that has been undertaken for Local Plan sites. Comment/Objection: What does it say regarding sites 044/178? It is not mentioned in the preferred site statement. Page 7 Para 18a: delivering the right infrastructure at the right time: ensuring that infrastructure to support new housing and employment opportunities, such as schools, health and transport are delivered at an appropriate scale and in a timely manner. Comment/Objection: Mere verbiage with no detail, although statistics on schools and local surgeries do appear later. Page 7 Para 18c: supporting high quality design...helping to minimise the impact of new infrastructure on local character and enhancing areas through innovative design which positively responds to local heritage and environments. Comment/Objection: No evidence presented as to how this might be achieved. What is meant by 'innovative design' that would be in keeping with the Priests Lane environment? What design strategies are profit-making developers likely to adopt? Page 7 Para 18d: enhancing green infrastructure networks: improving the quality, range and connectiveness of the Borough's natural green assets. Comment/Objection: How will this will be helped by removing a protected greenfield site? Page 7 Para 19: refers to the Draft Infrastructure Plan that is being continually updated. Comment/Objection: What is this? Page 11 Inset: The Borough will continue to thrive with a high-quality network of green infrastructure, parks and new connected green corridors, providing cycling and walking opportunities for all.....Brentwood will grow sustainably with new development directed to urban brownfield opportunity sites, well planned urban extensions. Comment/Objection: Except for Priests Lane, presumably, since we are targeted to lose a green space and have a highway that is conducive neither to cycling nor walking, but a connecting 'rat-run between Shenfield and Brentwood traversed by high speed traffic. Page 12 Para 28 SO1: maximise sustainable growth opportunities within our built-up areas and on brownfield sites. Page 12 Para 28 SO2: direct development growth in locations well served by existing and proposed local services and facilities. Page 12 Para 28 SO5: manage development growth to that capable of being accommodated by existing or proposed infrastructure, services and facilities. Comment/Objection: What represents 'sustainable' growth? Why are sites 044/178 the only identified greenfield sites? What evidence is identified for sites 044/178 being well served by existing infrastructure, local services and facilities - a set of statistics about schools and surgeries does not equal appropriate services? What proposals are there to enhance services? Page 12 Para 28 SO6: Plan for housing...creating inclusive, balanced, sustainable communities. Comment/Objection: What precisely does this mean for Priests Lane, one of the highest value housing areas in the borough? Page 13 Para 28 SO16: Protect and enhance valuable landscapes and the natural and historic environments. Page 13 Para 28 SO17: Establish a rich connected network of Green infrastructure across the Borough and reaching beyond. Comment/Objection: Developing sites 044/178 is clearly contrary to both the above objectives. Page 13 Para 28 SO19: Secure the delivery of essential infrastructure, including education, health, recreation and community facilities to support new development growth throughout its delivery. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence to confirm that education and health facilities will be delivered, given that the expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current need, whilst there is no evidence to support any view that surgeries can and will meet any substantial increase in demand - statistics do not often equate to reality. Page 13 Para 28 SO20: support self-build housing in sustainable locations across the Borough. Comment/Objection: What precisely does this mean? Which locations? Safeguards against blight? Page 13 Para 28 SO21: Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections Page 13 Para 28 SO22: Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors. Comment/Objection: Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars. Priests Lane is poorly served by pavements, which are too narrow and situated on alternate sides of the road. Any improvements are likely to narrow the width of the road below national guidelines that the Lane hardly meets now and actually transgresses in some places. Cycling in Priests Lane is almost suicidal and is rarely in evidence!! Page 14 Para 31The spatial strategy continues to focus upon the sequential use of land which prioritises using brownfield first and then considers growth in settlements in terms of their relative sustainability linked to services and facilities. This approach is in line with government guidance and best practice. The release of Green Belt land should only be considered after all sustainably located, suitable, available and deliverable brownfield sites have been identified as allocations. Comment/Objection: Again we have to ask - why sites 044/178, given their denotation? There is no evidence presented about their sustainability and likely required links to services and facilities. Which sites have been discounted as alternatives to these 2 sites? Pages 18/19 Paras 41/42: However, importantly due to the worsening of the affordability ratio in Brentwood and the increased costs of rental levels, conclusions identify the need for a reasonable upwards market signal adjustment. Compared to most of Essex, the borough is much less affordable, homes are more expensive, and now less affordable than the last housing boom. The degree of market signal uplift is a matter of professional judgment and evidence indicates a 30% uplift above the new 280 dwellings per annum baseline, plus a small contingency of 6% should new official projections indicate a slightly different position to that forecasted. 42. In summary, using the minimum revised net dwelling baseline figure (280) plus combined market signal adjustment and contingency adjustment of 36%, this leaves an objectively assessed housing need of circa 380 dwellings per annum or 7,600 dwellings across the plan period (2013-33). The revised housing need from 362 per annum to 380 per annum across the plan period (20 years) equates to a total dwelling increase of 360 additional units.'. The updated SHMA is published as part of this consultation. Comment/Objection: I am not qualified to analyse the Housing Need statistics and hence assume them to be accurate. However, what are concerning are the admissions that housing and rental costs in Brentwood are high and less affordable, that projections suggest that perhaps only 280 dwellings are required per annum and that, therefore, a market signal uplift of 30% plus a contingency of 6% should be accepted, raising the annual build to 380. The statisticians amongst us will correct me, but am I to assume that the increased build per annum (which is substantial) is to do with increasing supply in the hope of reducing house/rental prices? This would actually be insane if the projected demand does not, and was never meant to, meet supply. Page 22 Para 55: The Council received a number of representations on the Draft Local Plan (2016) suggesting that there was a lack of information about the site assessment methodology and overall process. A summary of the site assessment process undertaken is detailed in Figure 7, with a detailed site assessment methodology technical note available alongside this consultation. This work is based upon best practice and is considered to provide a robust framework for site assessment and selection. NPPF Footnote: To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer suitable location for development now,..be achievable... delivered within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable; to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development. Site options will be assessed in terms of their impact on a number of primary factors, including flood risk, Green Belt, landscape and highways....impact on historic assets, ecological designations, utilities, education and health facilities. All sites that have passed stages1 and 2 (site selection) will be appraised using objective (WHERE POSSIBLE) site selection criteria. This stage will identify any significant negative effects THAT MAY REQUIRE MITIGATION (my capitals) if a site is subsequently put forward for allocation. This study will identify whether proposed areas/sites/types of sites are viable and deliverable in the plan period. If evidence cannot give this confidence then it may be necessary to revise draft local plan policies and/or go back a stage and find alternative sites. This approach attempts to maximise brownfield redevelopment opportunities and support growth within sustainable locations. Comment/Objection: We need to review the technical note, given that the assessment of sites 044/178 is so weak. Note there is no comment in this revised plan Site Assessment of 044/178 referring to flood risk, landscape, highways, ecology, utilities, whilst the statistical references to Hogarth School and surgeries are questionable. Furthermore, if the process is so robust, why should site selection criteria not be objective? Why should a site that does not meet suitable selection criteria receive mitigation? With regard to Page 22 Para 55 we could conclude that there is a change of attitude here compared to that we have encountered in meetings with Louise McKinley and other councillors/representatives. Previously we have been told the entire Plan would be rejected by inspectors/government if sites 044/178 were not included as available sites. Para 55 implies this may no longer be the case and that sites that fail to meet development criteria could be discounted. Alternatively, we could interpret Para 55 as meaning that if sites 044/178 failed to meet the criteria, alternative reasons will be found to force development of the sites!! Page 25 Para 59: Brownfield Land within Brentwood Urban Area/Settlement Boundary 1,152 net homes / 13.94% of total build. Greenfield Land within Brentwood Urban Area/Settlement Boundary 95 net homes / 1.15% of total build Overall total build 8263 (100%) - Allocation total 6154 (74.48% of overall total). Comment/Objection: Whilst the net homes allocation at Priests Lane appears small taken as a total of planned building across Brentwood, the actual percentage of net build (Brentwood Urban Area Greenfield) at sites 044/178 compared to Brentwood Urban Area (Brownfield) net build is 8.25% which is a much higher percentage of net build in the Urban Area net build category, bearing in mind that the Priests Lane sites are the only identified greenfield sites in the entire plan/Borough. Furthermore, whilst comment on the planned 36% uplift on required housing has been made earlier, it is now clear this represents an net uplift of 2109 dwellings over the life of the plan, much of which would be expected to be built within 5 years of granted planning permission. These 2109 dwellings would then be built in the hope of driving down house/rental prices. Consequently, Priests Lane would be paying a rather high environmental price for the sake of an economic demand/supply house price lottery. Page 29 Para 64d: Work is progressing on....providing further design, layout and land use direction for the sites at Priests Lane and Honeypot Lane Comment/Objection: There is no detail provided about this and hence its meaning is unknown. Page 37 Para 77: For the year 2016/17, the net capacity of non-independent primary schools in the Borough was 6,032 pupils across 24 schools[11]. In the immediate future (2017/18) the net capacity of non-independent primary schools will increase to 6,222 pupils mainly driven by expanding Hogarth Primary School to a two-form entry (2FE) with 420 pupil capacity. Comment/Objection: The plan admits that the expansion of Hogarth Primary School will deal with predicted increased enrolments in 2017-18. It will then have a surplus capacity of 61 places by 2021-22. However, the Development Plan predicts a shortfall of places at Long Ridings Primary School of 217 places and Larchwood Primary School of 55 places - a total shortfall of 272 places. Since there is no mention of any further expansion at these 2 schools and given their relative proximity to Hogarth Primary School, it could be suggested that some of the need for places will be met by Hogarth. In this scenario further vehicle movements can be predicted in Priests Lane, increasing the danger to children that already exists. We should also recognize the notorious difficulty in predicting school place demand year-on-year (especially in areas of new housing - 95 homes could generate 30 children or 150, the number is unpredictable), the sudden inability of schools to meet demand and the unexpected frailty of schools where demand falls away. Page 45 Para 96: The Council will be looking to support the further development of the Endeavour School to provide facilities for sixth form students. This education requirement will need to be built into the detailed layout and masterplanning for the proposed housing site at land at Priests Lane (044/178). Comment/Objection: No detail is provided. What is clear is that expansion of Endeavour School, which is to be welcomed, is at odds with a sizeable housing development that will aggravate the health and safety obligations to already vulnerable children. Page 48 Paras 103 (stats) and 104: Current infrastructure services improvements alone are unlikely to address the significant patient pressures that may occur through housing growth in the Borough during the lifetime of the plan. Comment/Objection: If we only count forecast new patients at the nearest surgeries to Sites 044/178 - Rockleigh Court, Mount Avenue, The New Surgery and Tile House, they number 1023+1025+779+782 = 3609 respectively ( or a 34.46% increase). The average UK occupancy of each dwelling is 3.7; 95 houses could generate an additional population of 352 residents requiring medical services, i.e. 9.75% of the additional forecast new patients. It is well known that obtaining appointments at these surgeries is currently difficult or involves lengthy wait times, so the problems experienced by Priests Lane residents will only be exacerbated, a fact further aggravated by the local age profile. Page 50 Para 107: Brentwood is an attractive business location with a high quality environment .... and good transport links. Comment/Objection: Many local businesses have struggled to survive in a high rent and rates environment. Vacant sites at the Baytree Centre bear this out, along with the proliferation of food outlets in Brentwood and Shenfield High Streets. Brentwood High Street is mainly beset by fast food chains, hairdressers and charity shops - the recipe for High Street decline. As for travel to London, the current cost of a train season ticket from Shenfield is £3000. If the commuter wishes to go on from Liverpool Street to central London, the cost rises to £4000 and car parking is an extra £1000. Who exactly will be able to afford to live in Brentwood, commute to London and pay a mortgage for an affordable house in the borough, which is currently calculated at £440,000? Page 52 Para 110: The updated economic evidence...considers a number of evaluation factors including travel to work areas, commuting flows...and strategic transport routes. Comment/Objection: Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127/A128 and the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating narrow pavements and does not meet many national highway criteria nor acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood developments and Officers Meadow (the need for which is understood). Priests Lane is not suited to serve increased traffic levels. (Included site plan for sites 178 and 044). Comment/Objection: The problems with access onto Priests Lane are not mentioned. The reference to secondary access via Bishop Walk is not supportable, given the nature/width of the road is only sufficient for the few houses it serves. The references to contextual analysis, informing typologies, scale, materiality and landscaping are not explained and are, hence, meaningless. There is a brief reference to traffic problems (but these are viewed cursorily as 'localised' - surely all traffic could be defined as localised!!) . All other myriad objections to sites 044/178, often highly technical and evidenced, relating to the LDP issued in January 2016 have been ignored, as they have been for the whole of the intervening period to date. The only mantra we have received is that the land 'must' be developed for the sake of the Plan - which has now been disproved. The current designation of the sites as Protected Urban Open Space is acknowledged.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19534

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Mountnessing Parish Council

Representation:

Omissions have been made to the number of houses being built in the area. It is assumed that the LDP draft does not use administrative/parish boundaries; but using undefined boundaries makes it hard to get a clear picture of the impacts at local levels and could even imply to some residents that there is nothing happening in their locality, if the statistics were to be quoted out of context. A sensible improvement to the document would be to include tabulations which coincide with Borough and Parish boundaries.

Full text:

The following are the comments from Mountnessing Parish Council (MPC) regarding the Local Development Plan consultation. It is accepted that new housing development within the Borough is essential, however, MPC have significant concerns at the scale of activity envisaged both in the town centre and within the close environs of Mountnessing. The LDP document is unclear in how it treats Mountnessing as the numbers of houses quoted (Page 35) is well short of the Council Tax number (359 for the draft LDP vs c500 for Tax purposes). It is also not clear on what the definitions are of the Village, reference has been made of the Village Centre but from a Parish boundary perspective, half of the geographic area lies to the east of the A12 with the other half being to the West of the trunk road, where about two thirds of the houses are. This geographic issue then leads to the perspective that the LDP draft refers to houses being built in Ingatestone at sites 128 and 106 (total proposed 161), although they are firmly within the MPC boundary. To clarify, most traffic accessing these sites from Brentwood or the East bound A12 will pass through the centre of Mountnessing each day. Further omission is made when considering development being completed at the Weston Homes Elms site where the first of 91 completions started as far back as last May (2017) and yet this is not mentioned. The Thoby Priory site is also moving forward (section 106 agreement about to be signed) and will generate a further 87 houses within the short term. Altogether, this means that 178 houses within the Parish boundary are not accounted for against the Village (Page 35). It is unclear why the statistics quoted are only made up to April 2017, ie 9 months out of date. So in summary, although 339 houses are either being built, close to starting or planned for the future within Mountnessing Parish there is no impact according to the statistics on P35 (2016 vs 2033). It is assumed (clarification not having been provided) that the LDP draft does not use administrative/parish boundaries; but using undefined boundaries makes it hard to get a clear picture of the impacts at local levels and could even imply to some residents that there is nothing happening in their locality, if the statistics were to be quoted out of context (eg in the press)! A sensible improvement to the document would be to include tabulations which coincide with Borough and Parish boundaries. In terms of the new development the striking thing is the scale of development proposed on the corridor between Shenfield and the A12 and outwards through Mountnessing Parish (sites 128/106) and towards Ingatestone. The coalescence between Brentwood, Shenfield, Mountnessing and Ingatestone will be very damaging to the rural aspect on leaving Brentwood heading north. The loss of Green Belt is irretrievable. The sheer volume of construction and occupation will also be hard to accommodate from a traffic perspective on roads that are already painfully slow in morning and evening rush hours - especially when they are the only option when the A12 blocks. The advantage of rail travel to London is highlighted but not how the new houses could be served with local bus routes when station car parks are already at full capacity. The current retail centre in Ingatestone is not well suited for its current use because of its cramped roads and lack of parking and promoting it to absorb the impact of the sizeable new developments proposed in Mountnessing is not going to improve matters. It is also noted that much of the town centre building is on car parks and this will create yet more traffic/parking pressure within the centre of Brentwood, Local residents constantly raise concerns (which are valid) of infrastructure pressures (health, education, services etc). A holistic approach should be central to this, with all local bodies being co ordinated to produce the best results for residents old and new. MPC are aware that (in particular) additional education and health facilities are determined by growth forecasts. However, within the scale of proposed development in the Borough the existing executive structures would seem to need to be substantially augmented to maintain proper control over the building works planned and to ensure that the infrastructure issues are managed effectively. The process to get the LDP to this stage and the issues mentioned above do not inspire confidence that the necessary management control from the executive and councillors will be applied. Something commercial builders will exploit fully. In conclusion, MPC consider that the impact on the Village (both its centre and within its boundaries) and in the immediately adjacent areas will be very significant for residents as the A12 corridor develops - yet this hardly gets any consideration in the plan. Overall for the whole Borough, it is a worry that the plan has taken so long to produce, and, looking forward, it is a greater worry how the massive (relative to recent past) scale of the developments proposed will be managed to avoid the local identity being lost and a degradation of amenity and infrastructure, especially in the short term.

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19683

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Catesby Estates Plc.

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Representation:

The proposed allocation includes 1,732 dwellings (28% of housing delivery) on brownfield sites. Although this aspiration is supported, there is a difference on build
out rates on brownfield sites compared to greenfield. In the Lichfield's report "Start to
Finish, How Quickly do Large-Scale Housing Sites Deliver?" (November 2016) it is
shown that once started, large scale greenfield sites do deliver homes at a more rapid
rate than their brownfield equivalents, on average 50% quicker. Again, the housing
trajectory should reflect this.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19796

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: hgh consulting

Representation:

A Development Framework Document has been produced which demonstrates the site's ability to deliver a sustainable urban extension of at least 750 new homes alongside other community and employment uses, as well as significant enhancements to the existing open space. The site will therefore assist the Council in meeting its objectively assessed needs as detailed in Figure 8.

Full text:

HGH Consulting has been instructed by Clearview Residential Ltd to submit representations to the Brentwood Local Plan Preferred Site Allocations 2018 consultation in order to promote the inclusion of a strategic development site at London Road in Brentwood known as St Faith's. A Development Framework Document has been produced which demonstrates the site's ability to deliver a sustainable urban extension of at least 750 new homes alongside other community and employment uses, as well as significant enhancements to the existing open space. The site will therefore assist the Council in meeting its objectively assessed needs as detailed in Figure 8. It is proposed that the site be removed from the Green Belt (comprising just 0.1% of Brentwood's overall Green Belt) and identified as a preferred site allocation within Figure 9 with the following information: Site Name: St Faith's, London Road, Brentwood Site Reference: NEW SITE Proposed Use(s): Housing and commercial (offices) with ancillary leisure and community use(s) Gross Area (ha): 21. Developable Area (ha): 16 Indicative dwelling yield (net): min. 750. Other Indicative Uses: B1 - Offices, Parkland (sport and recreational uses), and ancillary retail, leisure and community uses (Classes A1 - A4, D1 / D2) Location and Background Information: Forming part of the existing BT Campus, One London Road, and the land to the north bounded by Honeypot Lane and Weald Road. Residential properties adjoin the northeast, east and south eastern boundaries. Housing Site Allocation Ref: 022 lies on the opposite side of Honeypot Lane. Site Access: London Road (via existing access to BT) with secondary vehicular access points on Weald Road and/or Honeypot Lane. Site Opportunities: Self-contained sustainable urban extension to Brentwood. Extensive area of Previously Developed Land (26%). Mixed-use sustainable form of development. Excellent linkages to Brentwood Town Centre and public transport connections. Opportunity to significantly enhance recreational activity in new parkland setting and pedestrian / cycle links through St Faiths Park. Site Constraints: Trees, Watercourses, sewer and cycle routes through the middle of the site will need to be considered. Delivery Forecast: Years 5-10. An edge red boundary is included within the Development Framework Document. (Please see attached document for details on the site).

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19909

Received: 26/03/2018

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation:

Our guidance 'Flood risk assessments: climate change allowances' should be used
to inform the spatial distribution of growth and the requirements of FRA's for
individual applications.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments: