Habitats Regulation Assessment

Showing comments and forms 1 to 2 of 2

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 25410

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Mr William A Smith

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Sections HRA, R25 and R26This plan is no dealing with a problem, it is making one, We do not have the infrastructure in this village or town. I need myself a good hospital, a GP appointment, these are both overstretched and difficult to obtain, they do thei best but we have far too many people per doctor. Our village now is not properly maintained. No street cleaning, no road repairs, no police, long waiting times nationally for ambulances. These things are important for young and old alike. There is nothing in this local plan that deals with this. Developers build, take the money and leave us with the mess these plans solve nothing to alleviate anything, I also have lived in this town 80 years.

Change suggested by respondent:

We need the investment to go with the plan not just houses we need massive improvement too infrastructure sewers, schools, Drs hospitals transport, better roads, we need a consultation to the whole of Brentwood, this is a devastating plan to our village and a disaster to Brentwood. We need government money to carry this out. I too question the site at South Weald. Be withdrawn. I lived there all my young life. It is within easy reach of the M25 amenities, easy access to the city, town within walking distance, the site is available. Give me one good reason why you turned it down.

Full text:

Sections HRA, R25 and R26This plan is no dealing with a problem, it is making one, We do not have the infrastructure in this village or town. I need myself a good hospital, a GP appointment, these are both overstretched and difficult to obtain, they do thei best but we have far too many people per doctor. Our village now is not properly maintained. No street cleaning, no road repairs, no police, long waiting times nationally for ambulances. These things are important for young and old alike. There is nothing in this local plan that deals with this. Developers build, take the money and leave us with the mess these plans solve nothing to alleviate anything, I also have lived in this town 80 years.

We need the investment to go with the plan not just houses we need massive improvement too infrastructure sewers, schools, Drs hospitals transport, better roads, we need a consultation to the whole of Brentwood, this is a devastating plan to our village and a disaster to Brentwood. We need government money to carry this out. I too question the site at South Weald. Be withdrawn. I lived there all my young life. It is within easy reach of the M25 amenities, easy access to the city, town within walking distance, the site is available. Give me one good reason why you turned it down.

Attachments:

Object

Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)

Representation ID: 25838

Received: 19/03/2019

Respondent: Mr Timothy Webb

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Representation:

Strongly object to all non-brownfield proposed housing site allocations. The local plan fails to fulfil the prescribed criteria because it involves a deliberate wanton, massive, wholesale destruction, despoliation, violation and vandalism of the countryside and the green Belt in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Acts and the five main purposes of the Green Belt as stipulated by the National Planning Policy Framework.
This is with regard to Dunton Hills Garden Village (R01), Shenfield (R03), Blackmore (R25 and R26), two schemes at Kelvedon Hatch (R23 and R24), Doddinghurst Road (R16 and R17)
Additionally the plan fails to satisfy the objectives of the sustainability appraisal with regard to Soils, Heritage, Landscape, Biodiversity.
The Duty to Cooperate has not be met in that the views of statutory bodies have not been met regarding Dunton Hills Garden Village.
The concerns of Blackmore Parish Council on R25 and R26 have been treated with contempt.

Change suggested by respondent:

Planning are building according only to absolute irrefutable necessity and not based on hypothetical projections of dubious accuracy way into the future.
Rejecting all development in the countryside/Green Belt, thereby respecting and upholding relevant statutes.
Concentrating unavoidable development on brownfield sites. eg West Horndon industrial estate R02, Warley (R04 and R05) and Wates Way industrial estate (R15), followed in order of priority by Ingatestone (former Garden Centre R21 and other R22) and town centre car parks (R10, R11, R14) in each case seeking greater yield by increasing density and constructing additional storeys.
Complying with the prescribed objectives of the sustainability appraisal.
Respecting council taxpayers, and the democratic process by rejecting any, all developments where there is significant local opposition.
All policy - local, regional, national, international should be predicated primarily on the need to restrict and ultimately reverse unsustainable population growth, not pander to it.

Full text:

SUMMARY Refer to attached scan for full text.
Object to local plan, SA and HRA.
Strongly object to all non-brownfield proposed housing site allocations. The local plan fails to fulfil the prescribed criteria because it involves a deliberate wanton, massive, wholesale destruction, despoliation, violation and vandalism of the countryside and the green Belt in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Acts and the five main purposes of the Green Belt as stipulated by the National Planning Policy Framework.
This is with regard to Dunton Hills Garden Village (R01), Shenfield (R03), Blackmore (R25 and R26), two schemes at Kelvedon Hatch (R23 and R24), Doddinghurst Road (R16 and R17)
Additionally the plan fails to satisfy the objectives of the sustainability appraisal with regard to Soils, Heritage, Landscape, Biodiversity.
The Duty to Cooperate has not be met in that the views of statutory bodies have not been met regarding Dunton Hills Garden Village.
The concerns of Blackmore Parish Council on R25 and R26 have been treated with contempt.

Planning are building according only to absolute irrefutable necessity and not based on hypothetical projections of dubious accuracy way into the future.
Rejecting all development in the countryside/Green Belt, thereby respecting and upholding relevant statutes.
Concentrating unavoidable development on brownfield sites. eg West Horndon industrial estate R02, Warley (R04 and R05) and Wates Way industrial estate (R15), followed in order of priority by Ingatestone (former Garden Centre R21 and other R22) and town centre car parks (R10, R11, R14) in each case seeking greater yield by increasing density and constructing additional storeys.
Complying with the prescribed objectives of the sustainability appraisal.
Respecting council taxpayers, and the democratic process by rejecting any, all developments where there is significant local opposition.
All policy - local, regional, national, international should be predicated primarily on the need to restrict and ultimately reverse unsustainable population growth, not pander to it.

Attachments: