Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)
Representation ID: 22603
Respondent: Cllr. Andrew Watley
Legally compliant? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
I object to sites R25 and R26 within the LDP.
Not chosen for good planning protocols, but convenient due to developers lined up.
At last LDP iteration - inappropriate to develop in the villages due to a lack of infrastructure. Nothing changed.
The scale of 70 new houses in a village of 350 houses is totally out of proportion - will change character.
Poor access. Flooding risk to village increased. Lack of good transport links.
Blackmore School at capacity - would force pupils out of the area.
No 'very special circumstances' to warrant building on greenbelt.
Taking out R25 and R26 as potential developments.
First of all I would like to fully support and endorse the response that has been sent in by Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green Parish Council, which is a very full report, covering all the points in finer detail. In addition I make my own points below.
* At a public meeting held at Blackmore Village Hall in January 2019, with local residents and the BBC Strategic Planning Team, a number of points became blindingly clear. The inclusion in the LDP of sites R25 and R26 was in no way due to good planning protocol but all to do with the convenience of having developers ready and able to develop these two sites. This is no way to choose areas for development within the LDP and appears to be the 'tail wagging the dog'. Developers work on the basis of commercial interest - profit - and will not have the requirements of the local community at the head of its priority list. What research or survey, if any, has been done by BBC in Blackmore and the Parish to determine that we need this housing? I understand that both Stondon Massey and Navestock, neighbouring parishes, both wish to increase housing stock but have been turned down by BBC. How can this be right when there are so many good reasons not to develop in Blackmore. Or is this again 'developer led'?
* In the last iteration of the LDP it was stated by BBC that it was inappropriate to develop in the villages due to the lack of, or restricted, infrastructure that existed. I am struggling to see what has changed from then until now to suddenly make these two developments practical.
* The sheer scale of development -70 houses - in what is a small village of some 350 dwellings cannot do anything other than change the character of the village. An increase of around 20%. Again, why do BBC feel it appropriate to expand a small village by this amount? It is disproportionate and it appears that only the presence of willing developers has prompted its inclusion in the LDP. Again - not the way to plan extra housing.
* The access to these two sites is poor at best. Red Rose Lane is very narrow and single track in places and was an old plague detour route. The extra car movements generated by this level of housing will be a big strain and added danger on the local roads whether using Red Rose Lane or Woollard Way (close to the school) or Orchard Piece for access. Whilst the village does have some bus service it is of a limited nature and the building of these two sites will put added pressure on the local road infrastructure as inevitably new house owners will be forced to use cars for the purposes of getting to their employment or local station.
* Blackmore does have a history of flooding and in very recent years has seen properties around The Green get flooded. Inevitably this development will force more surface water down into the Village. This is without taking into effect the developments which are taking place right on the borders of the Parish by our neighbouring parishes.
* Both these two sites are within the green belt which is protected and can only be used if there are 'very special circumstances'. We haven't been shown any proof of these 'very special circumstances' and that would appear to put building on these two sites at odds with planning regulations (NPPF). What is so special as to disregard the protection of green belt around the Blackmore village? Or is it again the convenience of having those developers in the wings.
* Our local Blackmore Primary School is at capacity at the moment and its classroom sizes make it impossible to increase the number of pupils within a class. No solution was given for this problem at the meeting. No extra funding mentioned. The result will be to force children to be placed in schools away from the village and hinder new youngsters to integrate into the area. It will also force more vehicular use in the area as parents ferry them to neighbouring schools.
For the reasons above I do strongly object to the two sites - R25 and R26 - being included in the LDP and feel that BBC have not fully considered all the implications in including them. I do not feel that using these two parcels of green belt has in any way been proven to be warranted. I do understand that new housing has to be planned and built but I feel a more practical way for villages such as Blackmore is to use up infill areas and smaller spaces to gradually increase the numbers of housing stock without resorting to larger developments which unbalance the village.
Cllr Andrew Watley
Brentwood Local Plan 2016 - 2033 (Pre-Submission, Regulation 19)
Representation ID: 24079
Respondent: LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
Agent: Chilmark Consulting Limited
Legally compliant? Yes
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
At Section 1 in paragraph 1.1 the BBLP establishes that the plan period is from 2016 to 2033 and indicates that the plan sets out how the Borough will develop over the next 17 years. Paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019) states that: "Strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from adoption, to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities, such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure". [Our emphasis]. The BBLP will not have a minimum 15 year plan period at adoption which is anticipated to be 2020 at the earliest. As currently drafted the plan period would
The plan period for the BBLP should be modified to ensure that there is a minimum 15 year period from the date of adoption.
Representations for and on LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
Section 1, Paragraph 1.1 - Plan Period
1. Chilmark Consulting Ltd. (CCL) are instructed by and write for and on behalf of
LaSalle Land Limited Partnership (LLLP) with respect to the Brentwood Borough
Local Plan: Pre-Submission Plan (BBLP) published for consultation by Brentwood
Borough Council (BBC) in January 2019.
2. This representation is concerned with Section 1, paragraph 1.1 of the Pre-
3. This representation must be read in conjunction with the other representations
submitted by LLLP dealing with related matters.
Nature of Representation
4. At Section 1 in paragraph 1.1 the BBLP establishes that the plan period is from
2016 to 2033 and indicates that the plan sets out how the Borough will develop
over the next 17 years.
5. Paragraph 22 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (February 2019)
"Strategic policies should look ahead over a minimum 15 year period from
adoption, to anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities,
such as those arising from major improvements in infrastructure". [Our emphasis].
6. The BBLP will not have a minimum 15 year plan period at adoption which is
anticipated to be 2020 at the earliest. As currently drafted the plan period would
Brentwood Borough Local Plan: Pre-Submission, January 2019
Representation for and on behalf of LaSalle Land Limited Partnership
be 13/14 years which is not sufficient to respond to the long term structural
development and growth of the Borough.
7. As drafted the BBLP is therefore not sound as it is not consistent with national
8. The plan period for the BBLP should be modified to ensure that there is a
minimum 15 year period from the date of adoption.