027 Land adjacent to Carmel, Mascalls Lane, Warley

Showing comments and forms 1 to 22 of 22

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 17878

Received: 07/02/2018

Respondent: Mr Howard Knibbs

Representation Summary:

Any development on this land will blight the residents of The Dell that back onto it.

The Dell is located at the very edge of the urban area/built-up area and is very peaceful, any development will effectively "hem in" these properties to be consumed into the urban sprawl, which local residents do not want.

For the detriment it will make to the local area both visually and the impact to existing residents in the Dell, a 9 dwelling increase in my opinion does not warrant the development, compared to, for example, 300+ at the site of the Ford building nearby.

Full text:

Any development on this land will blight the residents of The Dell that back onto it.

The Dell is located at the very edge of the urban area/built-up area and is very peaceful, any development will effectively "hem in" these properties to be consumed into the urban sprawl, which local residents do not want.

For the detriment it will make to the local area both visually and the impact to existing residents in the Dell, a 9 dwelling increase in my opinion does not warrant the development, compared to, for example, 300+ at the site of the Ford building nearby.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 17882

Received: 08/02/2018

Respondent: Mrs Alexis Knibbs

Representation Summary:

Today I have read this document and I'm completely against 9 houses being built. 9 houses it not a great deal when the owner already has one large housing estate. If these are to be family houses when are the schools and the doctors going to be built to accommodate. My son couldn't get into our local school because of the amount of people in the area. We live 0.5 miles as the crow flies. I can't get my child within walking distance of a school. So I'm completely opposed to this development unless more schools and doctors are built.

Full text:

Today I have read this document and I'm completely against 9 houses being built. 9 houses it not a great deal when the owner already has one large housing estate. If these are to be family houses when are the schools and the doctors going to be built to accommodate. My son couldn't get into our local school because of the amount of people in the area. We live 0.5 miles as the crow flies. I can't get my child within walking distance of a school. So I'm completely opposed to this development unless more schools and doctors are built.

Support

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 17900

Received: 12/02/2018

Respondent: Ms Connie Roffe

Representation Summary:

Why is the number of potential dwellings so small when compared to other sites?

Full text:

why is the number of potential dwellings so small when compared to other sites?

Support

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 17994

Received: 01/03/2018

Respondent: MR NICHOLAS CHAPLIN

Representation Summary:

This is an ideal small site for quick development of 10 -12 dwellings. It is surrounded on 3 sides by residential and fronts Mascalls Lane. It is a small piece of infill that no longer warrants Green Belt status following the Mascalls Park development.

Full text:

This is an ideal small site for quick development of 10 -12 dwellings. It is surrounded on 3 sides by residential and fronts Mascalls Lane. It is a small piece of infill that no longer warrants Green Belt status following the Mascalls Park development.

Support

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 17995

Received: 01/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Ruth Chaplin

Representation Summary:

This site is clearly now surrounded on three sides by residential and no longer seems to fit green belt criteria.
It makes an ideal small site to fulfil immediate residential need.

Full text:

This site is clearly now surrounded on three sides by residential and no longer seems to fit green belt criteria.
It makes an ideal small site to fulfil immediate residential need.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18116

Received: 09/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Greald Pearse

Representation Summary:

1) The site has very poor site lines and ingress & egress of the site is dangerous on this narrow busy road.

2) The topology of the site has such a sharp slope on it a development would tower over the adjacent gardens, be over bearing, block light and destroy all privacy on the neighboring properties

Full text:

This site has always been a pleasant wooded area, bustling with wild life and of great benefit to all. Several years ago, the landowner, cut down all the mature English trees and shrub land and drove all the wildlife away. In Nov '17, the landowner felled a very large healthy Oak tree, which had a girth of approx. 5 ft, and there was no notification to any resident in the area. The trunk and the tree remnants still lie on the site.
Having destroyed the natural environment of this once pleasant green field site, the landowners now seek planning permission, despite being refused twice in the past, and also having lost a government planning appeal in 2015.
This site in Mascalls Lane is NOT-appropriate for development due to:
1) The site lines for access to the site are on a bend and have very poor visibility. Mascalls Lane is a very busy road and having a site entrance with poor site lines on a busy road will lead to many traffic issues and accidents.
2) The topology of the site has such an incline on it, that the level of the site which backs onto our house is aprox 5 feet above our ground level. As the site rises towards Mascalls Lane the land level increases dramatically, such that the Mascalls Lane road is higher than our ground floor ceiling.
With development of this site, the development of houses would be overbearing on properties in The Dell and would overlook them and put them in shade and limit their natural light on this south facing site.
We would have houses towering above us and looking down into our back gardens and take away all our privacy that we currently enjoy.
The development of this small site would dramatically destroy the amenity we currently enjoy and from which the local community have benefited from for the past 30 years.

I believe this site should be taken out of the Local Plan, and be kept as Green Belt and be allowed to return to its previous use as a wooded area for wildlife. It would also leave Mascall Lane to be kept as a safe road with a pleasant view leading into Warley for the benefit of the whole community.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18123

Received: 09/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Jill Hubbard

Representation Summary:

This site was the focus of a recent planning application and outcry when the owners destroyed this ecological habitat, in an attempt to force it though.
Local residents and Councillors
met with the Planning inspector and it was refused on green-belt grounds & the site at the end of a rural lane with no footpaths. Also the proximity to houses to the immediate north, in The Dell.
Then, as now, too many houses are being proposed so a greedy developer is set to benefit at the cost of the local residents' amenity.

Full text:

This site was the focus of a recent planning application and outcry when the owners destroyed this ecological habitat, in an attempt to force it though.
Local residents and Councillors
met with the Planning inspector and it was refused on green-belt grounds & the site at the end of a rural lane with no footpaths. Also the proximity to houses to the immediate north, in The Dell.
Then, as now, too many houses are being proposed so a greedy developer is set to benefit at the cost of the local residents' amenity.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18148

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Patricia Creavin

Representation Summary:

This location should not be included in the Preferred Site Allocations, owing to its Green Belt designation; the density of the development in adjacent areas in recent years; the precarious access to the site; the degrading of the local amenity; and the already weakened provision of local faciities such as doctor's surgery and efficient traffic flow.

Full text:

This location has been identified as unsuitable for development on a number of occasions. Since the last refusal for development, significant properties have been added to the immediate environs. It is my instinct to suggest that presenting this location for development is a last ditch attempt by the land owner to make financial gain with no consideration to the local amenity. Changes to land use nearby in Great Ropers Lane, similarly within the designated green belt, has been fiercely contested; hence the precedent should apply in Mascalls Lane. The land adjacent to Carmel, Mascalls Lane has been a part of the Green Belt since it was instituted. It is not and never was suitable for development. Access, overdevelopment and pressure on local facilities preclude this area for further development. The nearest doctor's surgery (Beechwood Surgery) currently runs with a five to six week wait for non-urgent appointments. To add more homes requiring this facility is frankly naive and bordering on a derogation of duty by our Borough Council. The plan needs infinitely more cohesion and strategic planning. I firmly object to the inclusion of land adjacent to Carmel, Mascalls Lane in the preferred site allocations.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18150

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Martin Oxley

Representation Summary:

The area at the tope of Mascalls Lane has already seen significant development with new homes on the old hospital site, and the traffic route to Warley Hill and traffic lights does not have significant infrastructure to support further houses and dwellings of the number proposed here.

Full text:

The area at the tope of Mascalls Lane has already seen significant development with new homes on the old hospital site, and the traffic route to Warley Hill and traffic lights does not have significant infrastructure to support further houses and dwellings of the number proposed here.

Support

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18172

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: Mr and Mrs Paul McEwen

Representation Summary:

Ideal site with minimal local disruption with good access.

Full text:

Ideal site with minimal local disruption with good access.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18195

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Great Warley Conservation Society

Representation Summary:

I object to Green Field sites being considered for development and this land has been refused permission by the local planning Authority on tow occasions in recent years. It is totally unsuitable for flats or small units as required for first time buyers in this locality.

Full text:

I object to Green Field sites being considered for development and this land has been refused permission by the local planning Authority on tow occasions in recent years. It is totally unsuitable for flats or small units as required for first time buyers in this locality.

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18432

Received: 14/03/2018

Respondent: Mr Mark Simpson

Representation Summary:

Support a partial development, with flourishing green corridors, of this site. I don't support development of the entire plot, but only selected parts of the plot, with well planned buffer zone.
- A partial development with green buffer will improved the condition of site
- It is important to move beyond nimbyism and obsession with preserving inflated property prices
- The perceived disadvantages are minor and can be mitigated
- There is a real need for affordable housing in this area. If the land is used to help tackle this directly, then I would support a partial development of it.

Full text:

I am writing to support, in part, the addition to the Local Development Plan of the patch of scrubland on Mascalls Lane, adjacent to Carmel. I do not support the addition of the entire plot, however. Rather, I support only the addition of select parts of the plot, leaving the land at either end (by No 6 and No 16) and in the middle (by No 10, 12) as undeveloped, so as to act as buffers between Mascalls Park, Carmel and the proposed new homes.
(As this does not represent support for the existing proposal in its entirety, I am happy for this to be classified as an objection if the council deem this a more appropriate category).
In reaching this decision I have considered the following:
* Hilbery Chaplin seem determined, as is their wont, to leave the land in a terrible state - cutting back any growth, destroying habitats, and generally leaving the land looking something from the bleakest areas of Soviet Russia. Surely a partial development, with flourishing green corridors opposite No 6, No. 10 and No. 12, and No. 16, would be preferable to a daily view of such mean-spirited destruction.

* The affected residents of the intermediate band of properties have not, on other occasions, opposed overdevelopment in our road as a point of principle - and so I can only conclude that were they to oppose this patch's development, they'd be motivated merely by their own narrow sphere of interest (the only other interpretation - that in the past they displayed a marked lack of principle or community spirit cannot, surely, be true). Indeed, one such resident, in a surprising moment of animation, advised others to "leave emotion out of it" when appraising other proposed developments in The Dell - and so I have followed their wise counsel and taken a more utilitarian approach, weighing up the advantages and disadvantages to the whole area of this proposal. It is important to move beyond tired nimbyism and an avaricious obsession with preserving inflated property prices and assess the likely impact upon the local community as a whole, not just a small clutch of homeowners sitting on huge, unearned property dividends.

* This patch of land is anomalous: there's no other marooned patch of scurf enclosed by housing in this area - so there's no risk of setting a precedent (as there would be, for instance, with ugly two-storey, light-blocking rear extensions less than two metres from existing properties).

* The perceived disadvantages are very minor. Of course, two or three properties may be overlooked, but I'm sure the developers will plant trees along the border. In any case, other properties in the road are now overlooked by Mascalls Park, while those on our side have always been in sight of Hammonds Lane. As long as light isn't affected (which it wouldn't be given the size of the plot) then I see no issue. These houses are overlooked at the front, and now they will join the rest of the cul-de-sac in being overlooked to the rear, too.

* There is a real need for affordable housing in this area and development of parts of this forgotten and maltreated spot is surely preferable to incursions into genuine green belt land. I do not support the construction of a batch of depressing executive homes, of course, but if the land is used to provide either housing association stock, social housing or genuinely affordable starter homes, then I would support addition of very select parts of this plot to the plan.

I should note that this somewhat idiosyncratic take on the development is at odds with the other residents of this property (the actual homeowners) who firmly oppose any development in this area.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18485

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Brian & Sharon Hasting

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

This piece of land has been the subject of previous planning applications from its owners, and these have all been refused. We do not see the need to re-state all the reasons for the previous applications being refused, but believe that they hold firm today and are equally as valid as when the previous applications were refused. This land is greenbelt and should remain as such.

Full text:

We notice that the plan includes a piece of land in Warley adjacent to Carmel, Mascalls Lane ( site ref. 027 ). This piece of land has been the subject of previous planning applications from its owners, and these have all been refused. For the most recent application, an appeal was also refused. We do not see the need to re-state all the reasons for the previous applications being refused, but believe that they hold firm today and are equally as valid as when the previous applications were refused, when residents and the council planning department both objecting. We believe that the owners of this land have shown that they are solely out to make financial profit from this land while showing no regard for the surrounding community. They have seized on the situation and current planning activity to try once again to develop this green belt land. We wish to register our strongest objections to this piece of land being included for development in the Local Plan. We urge that the owners are given a strong NO response, and that this land is removed from the Local Plan immediately

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18507

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Ms. Cheryl Lee

Representation Summary:

Traffic along this road is already extremely busy and has gotten worse since the development at the Brentwood Hospital site. To build another development at this site would in our opinion be detrimental to this once pretty area of woodland. Over the past years it has been reduced from a pretty woodland with abundant wild life and lovely trees into a ragged site with even the removal of a very old oak tree without prior warning to residents- which caused devastation to gardens.

Full text:

For the third time planning permission is being requested for dwellings to be built on this woodland site. The same objections still apply and have even got worse since 5 years of the last refusal. Traffic on this very busy country lane has got even worse now with the latest new development at Brentwood Hsp yet alone Clements Park. Mascalls lane is a single lane road until it reaches the junction at the top by Fat Turk restaurant where is just about goes into 2 lanes, the traffic build up of a morning is terrible and can even take at least 10 mins to get onto Warley Hill from the side turnings. To build another development at this site would in our opinion be detrimental to this once pretty area of woodland. Over the past years it has been reduced from a pretty woodland with abundant wild life and lovely trees into a ragged site with even the removal of a very old oak tree without prior warning to residents- which caused devastation to gardens.!!! Privacy and light would be gone yet alone the turmoil building a new development here would create. There is no road access from Mascalls Lane so obviously access would have to be obtained before building and we believe that this small road would not cope. The local plan states that another 525 homes to be built in Warley by 2033 - we are already an extremely busy area being a short cut from M25 and A127 and suffer badly when these roads have problems (which is near enough every day) !! Please exclude this from your Localplan and help to get this little woodland back to the way it was and not another over crowded site full of houses and roads that cannot cope. Our local schools and especially doctors are overwhelmed now so with the arrival of even more dwellings which be completely over populated

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 18828

Received: 28/03/2018

Respondent: Ms Denise Brien

Representation Summary:

The proposed sites take no account of the extra traffic and therefore congestion which would be caused. The developments at Warley, Fords, Mascalls Lane would cause severe pressure on Mascalls Lane itself - it already suffers from greatly increased traffic from the Warley Hospital developments.

Full text:

I am writing regarding this and am unable to copy your form to this email - perhaps I am too late for commenting.
My comments are one of alarm at the number of sites you have noted in the plan. Hopefully not all will come to pass. It seems to me that a lot of these proposed sites take no account of the extra traffic and therefore congestion which would be caused. The developments at Warley, Fords, Mascalls Lane would cause severe pressure on Mascalls Lane itself - it already suffers from greatly increased traffic from the Warley Hospital developments. Most of the town centre proposals would also cause congestion and if car parks are developed where is parking to be provided for those residents and visitors.
While I appreciate that there is a need for housing in this country due to increases in the population I feel it is necessary that it is done so as not to destroy the country and the quality of life most of us are lucky to have. London and the south east always seem to bear to brunt of mass building you only have to look at London on leaving Liverpool Street for that!!
Some the proposed sites seem to be taking greenfield or woods into the development area which is unnecessary. We have many brownfield sites which should be used first. I understand the Campaign to Protect Rural England has listed sites throughout the country which could provide about 1 million homes. Will there be more roads to accommodate extra traffic, more schools, healthcare services, buses and trains and, perhaps, more importantly - jobs? I note some of the sites take industrial areas into being developed for homes. I know a great deal is done on the internet but there will surely be a need for other types of work.
While not agreeing with a lot in the plan it is good that a plan is being prepared as I saw a programme which showed what happens if local councils do not have one or update one. We are lucky to live in Brentwood which still has country parks and green areas - at the moment - but I think most people would be unhappy to see it turned into a Romford and Ilford which I think looks like a mini-Manhattan!
I note that the Council Office and the former Police Station sites are not mentioned - are these already decided? The land in Ingrave Road which was formerly Warwick Wright has been standing empty for years.
I do not think this huge planned development of 300,000 homes a year is realistic bearing in mind the infrastructure that has to go with it. Also will it really end bearing in mind the figures suggesting 200,000+ (net) people are migrating to the UK every year!

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19223

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs. Marian Spade

Representation Summary:

The site is greenbelt. The 9 houses being proposed will have a massive impact on the residents. They will be overlooked and will no longer have a pleasant view. As a result, their property prices will plummet and it will be much more difficult to sell them. This will also have a similar effect on properties on the west side of Warley Hill. In my opinion the only possibility for new builds on this site would be three bungalows or possibly chalet bungalows with a decent amount of garden space at the back.

Full text:

I wish to submit an objection to the building of 9 houses on a small area of Green Belt land behind The Dell and Adjacent to Carmel, Mascalls Lane. The properties on the south side of The Dell have a pleasant outlook from the back with south facing gardens. The possibility of 9 houses being built on such a small sight and so close to existing properties will have a massive impact on the residents. They will be overlooked and will no longer have a pleasant view. As a result, their property prices will plummet and it will be much more difficult to sell them. This will also have a similar effect on properties on the west side of Warley Hill. In my opinion the only possibility for new builds on this site would be three bungalows or possibly chalet bungalows with a decent amount of garden space at the back.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19280

Received: 05/03/2018

Respondent: Mr John Plumtree

Representation Summary:

Object building on Green Belt, as it will set a precedent for further development on land all the way down Mascalls lane. This piece of land has been systematically stripped of many trees in a deliberate attempt to make it look like waste land and therefore of no greenbelt value. The owner has tried and failed several times to build on this land and has been refused in the last because of obvious access issues. The land slopes up steeply from the gardens in the dell, meaning any houses built will be much taller than the properties in the dell.

Full text:

With regards to the land behind the dell and adjacent to Carmel, mascalls lane. We strongly oppose building on this green built land, as it will set a precedent for further development on land all the way down Mascalls lane. This piece of land has been systematically stripped of many trees in a deliberate attempt to make it look like waste land and therefore of no greenbelt value.

Hilbery Chaplin are wealthy local land owners who have tried and failed several times to build on this land and has been refused in the last because of obvious access issues.

Furthermore, the land slopes up steeply from the gardens in the dell, meaning any houses built will be much taller than the properties in the dell.

We strongly object to any proposed development to this land.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19532

Received: 11/03/2018

Respondent: Ms. Cheryl Lee

Representation Summary:

Site already has very heavy traffic. This site has been subjected to loss of trees and woodland over the past planning requests now even with the removal of a very old oak tree. This caused devastation to our gardens. With new site built here privacy and light will be lost and the area would be so over crowded. Our local schools and doctors cannot cope with the amount of people we have now.

Full text:

Again after 2 refusals permission is requested for 9 dwellings on this site. Again the same objections are put forward due to the very heavy traffic along this country road being made worse now with the new site at Brentwood Hsp,along with the previous build at Clements Park and Warley Hsp. This very pretty site has been subjected to loss of trees and woodland over the past planning requests now even with the removal of a very old oak tree without polite prior warning to the owners who's gardens back on to site. This caused devastation to our gardens !! Mascalls Lane is a very busy country lane giving a short cut into Brentwood and surrounding areas and when. M25 and A127 are blocked which is quite often gets very very busy. The junction at the Fat Turk restaurant is extremely busy with only one lane going to 2 just at the top and the traffic piles up of a morning and it can take 10mins and more to get out of the side roads. With w new site built here privacy and light will be lost and the area would be so over crowded. Warley is an extremely busy area now with lots and lots of traffic - please remove any more builds from your local plan. Our local schools and doctors cannot cope with the amount of people we have now.!

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19563

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Stonebond Properties Ltd

Agent: Mr. Stuart Willsher

Representation Summary:

Are please that this site has been included in the Preferred Sites Document. The inclusion of this site is in line with the NPPF, the greenbelt assessments, and the councils strategic objectives. We would ask why the Council has reduced the capacity of the site from 30 dwellings, to only 9. We ask the council to consider increasing the indicative dwelling yield to better reflect the proposed changes to the NPPF regarding site density from 9 to 10. Previous planning application 13/01351/OUT - site was refused due to lack of special circumstances.

Full text:

See Attached

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 19897

Received: 10/03/2018

Respondent: Wiggins Gee Homes Ltd

Agent: David Russell Associates

Representation Summary:

Site 027 was originally included in the 2011 SHLAA with an estimated capacity of 30 dwellings. It is back in the preferred site list with a capacity of 9. We think
this should be included in the overall windfall allowance, and the Green Belt boundary altered accordingly.

Full text:

See attached.

Comment

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 20079

Received: 12/03/2018

Respondent: Thames Water

Representation Summary:

We do not envisage network infrastructure concerns regarding wastewater infrastructure capability in relation to this site on a basis that it won't be any surface water connection into a public foul sewer system. Connection of surface water into a public foul sewer system reduces sewer capacity and has the potential to cause flooding to existing customers. Drainage hierarchy to be followed in addressing surface water.

Full text:

See attached.

Object

Preferred Site Allocations 2018

Representation ID: 20136

Received: 13/03/2018

Respondent: Mrs Gabrielle Simpson

Number of people: 2

Representation Summary:

- The primary objection concerns overdevelopment of the area. This is an important mitigating greenery area with diverse wildlife and flora. To claim that this is an infill site is ludicrous and deceitful as there is no buildings around the site.
- Any development would not be screened and would therefore change the character of this part of Warley.
- Concern about increased traffic, pollution and poor entrance access to site.
- Building so close to the Dell will have a hugely negative effect to houses that back onto the plot.

Full text:

See attached.

Attachments: