Policy DM11: New Development in the Green Belt
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 90
Received: 25/09/2013
Respondent: Thorndon Guardians
We support the approach to refuse developments except in very special circumstances and support the criteria c. and d. relating to quiet enjoyment and preserving and enhancing existing landscape and ecological features.
We support the approache to refuse developments except in very special circumstances and support the criteria c. and d. relating to quiet enjoymenbt and preserving and enhancing existing landscape and ecological features.
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 278
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Essex County Council
Policy DM11 - New Development in the Green Belt
Criteria c - refers to the effect of proposals on Public Rights of Way. Such effects should be considered with regards all development.
The Policy makes no reference to any impact on the local road network
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 332
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Mr Richard Lunnon
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
The objectives underlying this policy are generally supported. However it is considered that it needs substantial rewording in line with NPPF. see submission.
See Atteched
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 398
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP
We generally support the objectives underlying this policy, but consider that it needs substantial amendment in order to bring it into line with relevant NPPF guidance.
see attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 438
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Joy Fook Restaurant
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
We generally support the objectives underlying this policy, but consider that it needs substantial amendment in order to bring it into line with relevant NPPF guidance.
See Attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 508
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
We generally support this objectives underlying this policy but consider that it needs substantial amendment in order to bring it into line with relevant NPPF guidance. See attachment.
See Attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 614
Received: 23/09/2013
Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council
We very much welcome the fact that extension of a domestic cartilage into the Green Belt will not be permitted and that buildings in support of outside recreation will need to be justified.
See attachments
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 638
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Mr Graham Hesketh
It is also worrying in Policy DM11 New Developments in the Green Belt the very special circumstances can be interpreted in many ways and the 5 proposals in which these interpretations can take place are very broad!
It is pleasing to read throughout the report the Council is commited to the Green Belt but there are to many 'Ifs and Buts' e.g. Limited development, including infilling, will take place in the village, other than small scale development to meet identified needs very little development is expected.
More worrying is the Policy CP10 Green Belt. The following settlements are excluded from the Green Belt - Blackmore, Brentwood, Doddinghurst etc (I am not sure what this means?)
It is also worrying in Policy DM11 New Developments in the Green Belt the very special circumstances can be interpreted in many ways and the 5 proposals in which these interpretations can take place are very broad!
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 686
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: The Croll Group
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
In accordance with the critreria set out in the Policy we can demonstrate that our clients site meets it.
See Attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 715
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: CLM Ltd
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
The Council needs to review Policy DM11 in order to make sure it is entirely consistent with the NPPF definitions of appropriate and inappropriate development. As the policy currently stands, there is a conflict and it is unsound.
Furthermore, the test used to judge impact on 'openness' should be that set out in the NPPF (i.e. 'preserve openness') and the policy should be amended where a different form of wording is used.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 826
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd
Agent: Barton Willmore
Whilst we note that Policy DM11 broadly follows the guidance on Green Belts as set out in the NPPF, we are concerned that the Green Belt and Landscape Sensitivity Study (part of the evidence base) is not currently available at the time of the public consultation exercise. Therefore it is difficult to fully assess the soundness of this policy. We are of the view that a review of Green Belt boundaries should be carried out. We strongly believe that Officers Meadow should be removed from the Green Belt and allocated as a major housing site under Policy DM23.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1031
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Mr M Ashley
Green Belt development is designed to halt the sprawl of London and should only be developed in exceptional cases. In the evidence documents on the BBC website the projected population increase for Brentwood is primarily migratory. I see absolutely no reason why the Green Belt should be threatened by movement of people which, by its very nature, can settle on non green belt locations.
Object to:
Primarily - CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area & Supporting Documents
plus the following in connection with impact on West Horndon;
S2: Amount & Distribution of Residential Development
CP3: Strategic Sites 020 / 021 / 037
DM11: New Development in the Green Belt
DM17: Wildlife and Nature Conservation
DM24: Affordable Housing
DM28: Gypsy and Traveller Provision
DM35: Flood Risk
Appendix 3: Housing Trajectory
Comments (please use additional sheet if required):
The Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 and supporting documents are in sufficiently detailed with information to justify the disproportionate allocation of 43% of the borough housing requirement and 70% of Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be allocated to the village of West Horndon. These numbers will treble the current size of the village whilst decimating a large area of Green Belt. We as villagers did not receive the promised feedback from the 2011 consultation and previously discounted areas of Greenfield have now been put back into the LDP without explanation despite strong resident opposition to Green Belt development. The character of the village will be irreparably damaged by such a huge development and change our village status to a small town with none of the amenities. I am being expected to make a decision on the future of my neighbourhood with limited information which is wholly unacceptable.
The LDP fails to state how and when the local road, education, health, rail and utility infrastructure will be improved to accommodate such an aggressive development and from where the necessary funding has been secured. It would be irresponsible to proceed without detailed planning for such vital associated services. There is no further rail capacity available and the route does not provide access to our borough. The housing trajectory shows a staged construction of houses yet there is no evidence of a demand for house building in the area as potential sites have been left undeveloped in Station Road and on the Elliott's site for several years. Affordable and social housing is not ideally situated in rural areas such as West Horndon and the new development is unlikely to comprise of properties similar to the family homes that dominate the village demographic. Traffic at its peak causes congestion along Station road when trying to exit onto the already dangerous and packed A128. (numerous accidents have occurred at this junction before and after highways made changes and adding further traffic will raise the risks further )
The LDP gives no consideration to the wider implications from other developments in the vicinity, such as the DP World port and proposed A2 Thames crossing, both of which will dramatically increase traffic in the area and place further burdens on the Borough's infrastructure without the additional traffic from the proposed West Horndon development. There are only two routes into Brentwood from West Horndon (A128 / Warley) and access to the area will be gridlocked.
Green Belt development is designed to halt the sprawl of London and should only be in exceptional cases. In the evidence documents on the BBC website the projected population increase for Brentwood is primarily migratory. I see absolutely no reason why the Green Belt should be threatened by movement of people which, by its very nature, can settle on non green belt locations. The wildlife in the area will be adversely affected by the proposed development on Green Belt and I must question whether investigation has been made into protected species which inhabit the area such as Great Crested Newts as there is no mention in the LDP.
The Environmental Agency lists areas 020, 021 and 037 as being on flood plain as borne out by the most recent flooding incidents in 2012. The village suffers from flooding or near flooding on a regular basis in this area with no plans to remove the risk of further flooding once the development has been started it will only get worse. There is no evidence that this factor has been considered in the LDP and to site traveller and gypsy pitches on a flood plain is unacceptable.
I do not believe that the LDP is sound or robust enough to be considered in its present form and appears to be a rash decision to fulfil government targets. I acknowledge that progress must be made and that some development may be necessary and this should be made in smaller numbers to keep the village in its status. However, much more investigation needs to be undertaken by the council and the views of the community considered in depth before any decisions are made that will affect us in the long term.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1090
Received: 30/09/2013
Respondent: Zada Capital
Agent: Zada Capital
This policy recognises the need to protect the Green Belt by making it virtually impossible for new development to take place. The Council by proposing this inflexible policy is restricting development with in the Borough to a level that does not meet the numbers identified within the recent study commissioned by the Council and carried out by Peter Brett Associates. There needs to be development in the Green Belt and not just West Horndon.
See Attached.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1332
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Laindon Holdings Ltd
Agent: Town Planning Services
The policy sets out detailed criteria for the assessment of applications for development in the Green Belt. It is considered that these criteria are unnecessary. The key issue in the assessment of proposals for development concerns the impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. The suggested criteria in Policy DM11 go beyond this and are inappropriate.
See Attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1564
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Mr. David Gale
As mentioned in paragraph 2 above, current Green Belt land protects the village from even more severe flooding. In fact, it is possible that the Green Belt around West Horndon, along the A127 and beneath the hills of Thorndon Country Park, should be classified as "safeguarded land" (NPPF 85) to prevent flooding to the village and the A127.
There are, however, other reasons why that Green Belt land is important, and the plan seems to contradict the NPPF
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1565
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: D. Lessons
As mentioned in paragraph 2 above, current Green Belt land protects the village from even more severe flooding. In fact, it is possible that the Green Belt around West Horndon, along the A127 and beneath the hills of Thorndon Country Park, should be classified as "safeguarded land" (NPPF 85) to prevent flooding to the village and the A127.
There are, however, other reasons why that Green Belt land is important, and the plan seems to contradict the NPPF
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 3305
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Navestock Parish Council
Navestock Parish Council would welcome a small number of homes being built on various brownfield sites which could be identified within the village. We believe that if care is exercised, the village can sustain approximately 8 new homes each year for the next 15 years. These new residents, especially those with young children would bring new life to our community and benefits for resients over the coming years.
See attached.