Support

Representation ID: 92

Received: 25/09/2013

Respondent: Thorndon Guardians

Thorndon Park is partly a SSSI as well as a Registered Park of Special Historic Interest and a Living Landscape as identified by Essex Wildlife Trust, we therefore strongly support this policy.

Comment

Representation ID: 105

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: Woodland Trust

As previously mentioned, the Woodland Trust wishes to see ancient woodland given absolute protection, due to its irreplaceable nature. See previous comments for rationale.

Object

Representation ID: 406

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP

This policy should be reworded so that it more closely coincides with Policy DM17 in that the opening paragraph should read as follows:
Development will not be permitted where it would have a detrimental effect on, or result in the loss of, significant landscape heritage or a feature of ecological importance, including trees, woodlands or hedgerows, unless it can be demonstrated that the justification for the development outweighs the harm caused.

Object

Representation ID: 620

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Within this policy we can see no reference to the Special Landscape Area of Highwood and Hanningfield within which Ingatestone sites. This attractive part of the Borough needs special protection and you must highlight its importance within the new Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 857

Received: 23/09/2013

Respondent: Thames Chase Trust

Reference to the Thames Chase Community Forest should be strengthened and Thames Chase Trust added as a partner in the delivery section. Within justification text, reference to the emerging Thames Chase Plan could be made as this review has highlighted two strategic opportunities within Brentwood borough that should be acknowledged in the Local Plan:

Draft text suggested for Brentwood woodlands [see attached]

Draft text suggested for Brentwood pastures [see attached]

Support

Representation ID: 973

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Natural England

This policy is also welcomed and broadly supported.

Support

Representation ID: 988

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

Page 115 para 4.70

We support the statement "Where conservation is the primary objective, there will be a presumption in favour of native species" However we believe that there should be a statement in brackets at this point that refers to the case when the primary objective is screening of industrial/commercial and housing sites and that the wording should be:

"Where screening of industrial, commercial and housing sites is the primary purpose, then species may be chosen appropriate to that purpose and it is not mandatory that native species be deleted"

Comment

Representation ID: 1277

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: Mr Richard Romang

DM18 / DM32:- Tree protection. Even though we have legislation covering the protection of trees and hedgerows it is noticeable that we are losing a large number of trees from our urban and rural landscape. Native hedges also seem to be being replaced for laurel and other ornamental species around houses and domestic land in agricultural and rural settings. It would be good to see more protection put in place to preserve our tree lines and hedgerows in the Local Development Plan outside the current conservation area and general TPO approach.

Comment

Representation ID: 3366

Received: 26/09/2013

Respondent: Anglian Water

Comments provided on each proposed site allocation on attached RAG spread sheet.

Comments provided for when sewers cross sites, in which case the site layout should be designed to take this into account. Appropriate locations and process suggested in attached response.

Comments on surface water disposal measures and inclusion of SUDS.