We support the development of residential housing on the land currently occupied by the defunct Blood Service Centre in Crescent Drive. We believe that such a development, if sensitively delivered, will enhance the immediate vicinity whilst at the same time providing a much needed addition to the local housing stock.

We wonder whether any consideration had been given to residential care homes, retirement homes etc given the high number of elderly residents in the area, keen to downsize but remain local. Keeping local elderly residents happy whilst at the same time freeing up significant numbers of large properties in the area seems to us a win/win situation.

Density of housing is a key area of concern. Only 29 dwellings currently exist in the road (plus the Hospital) and therefore a further 55 dwellings will create a lot more traffic, noise, pollution and congestion etc.

Parking will be a significant issue if not contained within the development and compliant with the minimum standards set by Brentwood Council Policy BE17. Crescent drive itself is an s-shaped road with limited visibility on its numerous bends. It has a very busy community hospital where parking is already a major issue and is one of three main routes between Shenfield and Brentwood already gridlocked at peak times. Parking is not allowed along its entire length from 9am to 6pm Monday to Saturday at present reflecting the busy nature of the road and the need for access to be maintained to the hospital.

With minimum walking distances of 15-20 minutes to both Shenfield and Brentwood Town Centres and easy access to both M25 and A12/A127 car ownership/usage in the new development will be high.

Given the topography of the land which falls away considerably from the road (Crescent Drive) we believe it to be sensible to have low rise properties (maximum three storey) facing Crescent Drive itself and in keeping with the nature of road itself, whilst developing taller, more populous dwellings further back in the site, which of course is exactly what the Blood Bank building itself has done, the precedent therefore already exists.

We are keen that the design of the buildings and the quality of materials used to construct them are high, in keeping with the local area and that the building line should follow that of adjoining properties

Provision of open space is important and needs to be compliant with existing Brentwood Policy.

Finally, the pleasant nature of Crescent Drive is in no small part due to its leafy nature ith numerous trees. Two large mature Oak Trees were recently removed from the roadside outside the Blood Bank due to them being diseased. There now are only two Oak Trees bordering the site and the Road which we believe should be protected to ensure that they are retained.

Whilst we support the creation of additional housing on the site of the old Blood Transfusion Center in Crescent Drive this is with some important provisos

1. Design - We are keen to ensure that the development is a high quality design and that materials are in keeping with the surrounding area. All the residential properties in the area are detached houses and the proposal for 55 dwellings sounds out of character but if this can be achieved so that the development is in keeping with the area then we will be supportive. The building line should follow adjoining properties and height on road frontage should not be dominant and no more than 2 storey + roof as at present. More height at rear of the site is acceptable as the site falls away and it is unlikely to be too overpowering on the character of the area. We are concerned that there has been no consultation to date regarding design etc.

2. Density - We are concerned with the proposed density on this site which is much greater than in the rest of the area. We would like confirmation that Essex Design Guide and Brentwood Policy BE17 that state that there should be 1 space per 1 bed unit and 2 spaces per 2 bed unit are followed. There should also be an additional spaces allocated for visitor spaces. The site is not a town center site and Policy BE17 should be adhered to to avoid parking on surrounding roads.

3. Trees - Policy R18 specifically makes provision for protecting existing trees within the development site. We would like a landscape led proposal that minimises the impact on the adjoining Green Belt. The retention of trees is key for us.

4. Amenity - Within the planning policy it specifically mentions a requirement for public open space to be provided on site. This is important to restrict density and maintain the character of the area.

5. Retirement Homes - Consideration should be including given residential care homes facility or retirement homes as there are a high number of elderly residents in the area, keen to downsize but remain local.

6 No Loss of Light - It is very important that the new

POLICY R18: Land off Crescent Drive, Shenfield


To whom it may concern.

I have a copy of The Brentwood Development Plan and I am writing to comment specifically on the proposal POLICY R16: Land off Crescent Drive, Shenfield.

The proposal suggests " a provision for around 55 new homes of mixed size and type, including affordable housing" are to be built on an area of 1.39 Hectares.

Your Standards for new housing also require in Policy BE23 that you should :
" a) consider the location and context of the development, including the character of the surrounding area"

The houses in Crescent Drive are generally :
* With substantial size
* Well built
* 4 - 5 bedrooms
* Situated back from the road
* Gardens sized from ¼ acre to 2 Acres
* Mostly double garages and adequate drives to hold several cars off the road

Crescent Drive is not a wide road and, as its name implies, it have several curves in it and a hospital with an entrance on one of the curves, which already brings danger to cars exiting the hospital.
The road is extremely busy every day with cars using it as a rat-run at school times and hospital clinic times conflicting. The road is often full from end to end.

We are in favour of providing extra housing in Brentwood, but it should be in line with your principals by "considering the location and context of the development, including the character of the surrounding area"

We consider that to have high density habitation of 16 per Acre compared with the average Crescent Drive density of about 6 per acre. A more reasonable amount of houses to build on the Blood Bank site would be nearer 30.

Parking: The road is regularly blocked with cars and parking is controlled from 9am to 5pm, so unless the building site has an absolute minimum of 2.5 times the number of homes, there would be serious problems with car parking on the site.

Building and site quality. A single road on the site could be dangerous for the inhabitants should there be a car accident or fire if there is parking on the roads and emergency vehicles need to get by.
The houses fronting Crescent Drive should be built to a similar size and design to match the others in the road.

Trees and shrubbery:
Crescent Drive is a very green area and all existing trees and bushes need to be retained.

Policy wording should be amended as follows:

b. provision for "multifunctional" public open space to deliver a measurable net gain in biodiversity;

Policy wording lacks a commitment to deliver biodiversity net gain.

1.0 Introduction
1.0.1 Thank you for consulting the Basildon & Brentwood Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and the Mid and South Essex Sustainability and Transformation Partnership (STP) on the above emerging Local Development Plan (LP) Document.
1.1 In reviewing the context, content and recommendations of the LP Document and its current phase of progression, the following comments are with regard to the Healthcare provision on behalf of the STP
2.0 Existing Healthcare Position in the Emerging Plan Area
2.1 The LP Document covers the administrative area of Brentwood.
2.2 Currently, within the administrative area, healthcare provision incorporates a total of 9 GP Practices, 13 pharmacists, 9 dental surgeries, 10 Opticians, 2 community clinics and 2 community hospitals.
2.3 These are the healthcare services available that this Local Plan must take into account in formulating future strategies.

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to engage in the consultation on the Council's Pre-submission Publication Draft Local Plan (Regulation 19). We write on behalf of our clients, Messers A, J and C Courage, who own the freehold of the Eagle and Child Public House, Shenfield. The site is subject to a planning application submitted in February 2019 and we fully support the proposed allocation of the site for residential development.
As a general comment, we note that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires all Local Plans to apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development (para 11). It states that local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area and Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change. They should be consistent with the principles and policies of the NPPF and should be aspirational but realistic. Plans should be deliverable and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viability is threatened.
Paragraph 35 of the NPPF requires Local Plans to be sound and in order to meet this requirement they should be:
Positively Prepared - be based on objectively assessed development requirements, consistent with achieving sustainable development.
Justified - be the most appropriate strategy based on proportionate evidence.
Effective - be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working.
Consistent with National Policy - enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with
the policies of the NPPF.
As a general comment, we support the consultation exercise that is being held and the allocations of this site in order to meet the employment needs of the Borough.
The Site
The site is in Shenfield, on the southern side of Chelmsford Road, between Hutton Road and Shorter Avenue and opposite Shenfield Park. The site extends to approximately 0.24 hectares and is broadly L-shaped. The public house is located in the western part of the site, with an extensive garden to the rear, and the eastern part of the site comprises hardstanding used for car parking. The existing building dates from the 1930's but has a 1950's extension and rises to two storeys in height. The existing building is not statutorily or locally listed, nor is it located within a conservation area. The public house is currently leased with a break available in 2019, making it available for development.
The site is located within a predominantly residential context. Directly to the north of the site is a row of residential dwellings with the playing fields and Shenfield Cricket Club beyond. Adjacent to the site at the eastern boundary is Sawyers Court; a retirement housing development rising to 2.5 storeys. To the south of the site is Ardleigh Court which comprises a series of residential apartment buildings between two and three storeys. The west of the site is bound by residential properties fronting Chelmsford Road (Nos. 7, 9, 11 and 11a) and Hutton Road (No. 20 and Nos. 1-4 Gabriel Mews).
The site is located within Flood Zone 1, which indicates that the site has a low probability of flooding. There are a number of trees on the site, predominantly located to the rear of the existing building, none of which are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. The site is located approximately 350m northwest of a number of high street facilities located on Hutton Road, including convenience stores, banks, post office, restaurants and takeaways, cafes and bars, pharmacy and hair and beauty salons. There are a number of educational facilities in the area surrounding the site, including Shenfield Day Nursery (approx. 100 metres southwest), St Mary's Primary School (approx. 230 metres west) and Shenfield High School (approx. 1km northeast). With regards to healthcare facilities, Rockleigh Court Doctor's surgery is located approximately 320 metres southeast of the site.
The site is located approximately 550 metres from Shenfield National Rail Station, which is located to the south east of the site on Hutton Road and provides TFL Rail and Greater Anglia services towards London Liverpool Street as well as Greater Anglia services to a number of destinations within Essex and East Anglia including Southend Victoria, Clacton on Sea, Colchester Town, Braintree and Ipswich. In addition, from December 2018 Shenfield will provide Crossrail / Elizabeth Line services to central London. The site is located approximately 2.5km (3 minute drive) from the nearest intersection with the A12 which provides links to central London as well as to Essex and East Anglia.
Background
We have previously submitted representations on behalf of the landowners to earlier consultation versions of the emerging Brentwood Local Development Plan; including the Draft Local Plan Preferred Site Allocations. We have also recently submitted a planning application for the redevelopment of the site to provide 15 residential dwellings (LPA. 19/00268/FUL).
Comments on the Pre-Submission Publication Draft Local Plan
The Pre Submission Draft Local Plan seeks to provide 7,752 residential dwellings during the plan period (2016- 2033). These dwellings will be delivered at an average rate of 310 dwellings per year to 2022/23, followed by 548 dwellings per year from 2023/24-2033. Draft Policy SP02 'Managing Growth' states that new development within the borough will be directed towards the proposed site allocations.
Site Allocation
The Pre-Submission Draft Local Plan seeks to allocate the site for residential development (Policy R18). The emerging allocation seeks the delivery of 20 dwellings on the site within the first five years of the Plan. We welcome the additional consultation and site allocation and in particular we would like to take this opportunity to express our strong support for the proposed allocation of the site for residential development.
Sustainability
The site is located within the development boundary of Shenfield and comprises previously developed land. At the national level, a key principle of the NPPF is the re-use of previously developed, or brownfield land. This principle has informed the Council's emerging spatial strategy, which seeks to develop land sequentially with brownfield land and sites within settlement boundaries being prioritised for development. The proposed allocation of the site for redevelopment is therefore wholly in accordance with national and local policy objectives.
The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five year housing land supply but, in order to meet the objectively assessed need for housing, proposes to significantly increase its housing delivery target within the emerging Local Plan. The redevelopment of brownfield sites will be key to meeting these needs and is expected to deliver up to 74% of the total delivery across the Plan period. The site at the Eagle and Child Public House is a preferable site and necessary in order to ensure the Council meets its objectively assessed housing need. In addition, the intention for the site to be delivered within the first five years of the Plan will help the Council to demonstrate a five year supply of land for housing. The NPPF at paragraph 11 outlines an underlying presumption in favour of sustainable development through both plan-making and decision-taking. This is reflected within the emerging Local Plan which seeks to focus new development on sites which are accessible to public transport.
The site is located in an accessible location with good public transport links to London and other locations within Essex and East Anglia, as well as good connections with the local highway network. In addition, the site is well supported by community facilities such as schools and healthcare providers, as well as local retail provision. Furthermore the site is not within an area at risk of flooding, and as set out above, comprises a brownfield, previously developed location. Therefore the site is considered to be a sustainable location for development and its allocation is supported by national policy and the Council's emerging strategies. It is considered that the draft site allocation will promote sustainable development, and is therefore in accordance with draft Policy SP01 'Sustainable Development'.
Deliverability
Our client owns the freehold to the site and there is a break in the existing lease in 2019 which would make the site available for redevelopment. The site is therefore considered to be deliverable for residential development within the next five years, in line with the Council's intentions as set out in the draft allocation. The site has no overriding constraints which will mean the site cannot be delivered. In respect of the allocation it is proposed to be allocation for around 20 new homes. Whilst the current planning application is for 15 dwellings it is considered appropriate to allocate the site for around 20 new homes to provide flexibility as to what is delivered on the site.
Summary
We consider that the emerging Local Plan is being prepared in line with the requirements of the NPPF in order to meet local needs. The Publication Draft Local Plan been prepared as part of a comprehensive plan-making process including the consideration and testing of a number of growth options and alternatives. The Plan has been positively prepared with significant involvement from local residents and stakeholders including consultation on the Strategic Growth Options in 2015, the Draft Local Plan in 2016, Call for Sites in 2017, and the Preferred Site Allocations in 2018. Given the advanced stage of the local plan process, the proposed site allocations, including that of our client's site, have therefore been well informed and are considered to be robust.
Overall the site is considered to be a sustainable location for development, in the first instance because it comprises previously developed land within an established settlement boundary, but also because it is located in an accessible location. In addition, the site is considered to be available for development and new residential dwellings can be delivered within the first five years of the new Local Plan. Its allocation for the delivery of 20 new residential dwellings is considered wholly appropriate and is strongly supported.
Conclusion
We trust that the above is of assistance in the preparation of the new Local Plan for Brentwood. We would like to be kept up to date with the progress of the Local Plan and look forward to future opportunities to engage and we reserve our right to appear at the Examination in Public.
We look forward to confirmation of receipt of these representations. Yours sincerely
Catherine Williams
Associate Director

Removal of Policy R18: B Development Principles criterion b. provision for public open space.

Fairview New Homes are submitting these representations to the Brentwood Local Plan 2016 to 2033, Pre-Submission Regulation 19 Stage consultation. The submission relates to the former Brentwood Blood Centre, Crescent Drive, CM15 8DP. The representations relate to the soundness of the Local Plan.

Policy R18: Land at Crescent Drive

Policy R18 A: Amount and Type of Development

The site is identified as having capacity for "around 55" homes of mixed size and type, including affordable housing. Supporting text at paragraph 9.165 states that the site is anticipated to be delivered between 2021/22 and 2023/24.

Fairview supports the designation for housing, and having undertaken some design and massing work, considers that it can accommodate more than 55 units. However, for the basis of a policy designation, Fairview supports this policy and considers that this policy is sound.

This is for the following reasons:

Ownership - The site is solely owned by Fairview New Homes.

Fairview - Fairview was established in the 1960s and has now delivered over 400 projects across the Southeast. Fairview has a strong track record of success and rapid delivery. Following the planning process, Fairview implements consents as soon as possible. Fairview is a specialist in urban sites with challenging characteristics and has a strong track record of regenerating vacant and derelict sites into residential use. As such, it is considered that the delivery of the site can be achieve in the short term and the delivery timescale included within the policy is sound.

Site Characteristics - The site comprises an irregular shaped parcel of land with an area of 1.5 hectares, of which 1 hectare is developable. The remainder of the site is heavily wooded and protected by planning designations.

The site comprises a vacant blood donor, research and distribution centre, with associated laboratories, cold stores and office facilities. The main building in the centre of the site is 2 storeys at the front increasing to 3 and 4-storeys to the rear. Single storey workshops and garages are located to the south and south-west. There are two existing access points from Crescent Drive into the site.


Policy R18: B Development Principles

Within the draft policy the following development principles are listed:

a. vehicular access via Crescent Drive;
b. provision for public open space;
c. protect and enhance landscape boundaries to the south west of the site;
d. protect existing site trees within the development site; and
e. provision for pedestrian and cycle connections.

Fairview supports development principles a, c, d and e of the draft policy. Fairview does not consider "B Development Principle b. provision for public open space" to be sound.

This is for the following reason:

Site Constraints - The key constraints to developing the site comprise the site levels and large number of existing trees. The site slopes from north to south by 3 metres and north-west to south-east by 4 metres. As such there is a storey height difference between the front and back of the site and from each side.

Paragraph 5.181 in reference to Policy BE22: Open Space in New Development, useable open space is defined as 2000m2 in a single mass, giving people a space to be able to play. It is considered that given the substantial constraints relating to levels and tree coverage of the site, that creation of a public open space within the site is not a sound principle of development. Smaller pockets of amenity space that respond to the tree locations and ground levels would be a more appropriate development principle for this specific site.

Remove criterion b. provision for public open space of Policy R18

Fairview New Homes are submitting these representations to the Brentwood Local Plan 2016 to 2033, Pre-Submission Regulation 19 Stage consultation. The submission relates to the former Brentwood Blood Centre, Crescent Drive, CM15 8DP. The representations relate to the soundness of the Local Plan.

Policy R18: Land at Crescent Drive

Policy R18 A: Amount and Type of Development

The site is identified as having capacity for "around 55" homes of mixed size and type, including affordable housing. Supporting text at paragraph 9.165 states that the site is anticipated to be delivered between 2021/22 and 2023/24.

Fairview supports the designation for housing, and having undertaken some design and massing work, considers that it can accommodate more than 55 units. However, for the basis of a policy designation, Fairview supports this policy and considers that this policy is sound.

This is for the following reasons:

Ownership - The site is solely owned by Fairview New Homes.

Fairview - Fairview was established in the 1960s and has now delivered over 400 projects across the Southeast. Fairview has a strong track record of success and rapid delivery. Following the planning process, Fairview implements consents as soon as possible. Fairview is a specialist in urban sites with challenging characteristics and has a strong track record of regenerating vacant and derelict sites into residential use. As such, it is considered that the delivery of the site can be achieve in the short term and the delivery timescale included within the policy is sound.

Site Characteristics - The site comprises an irregular shaped parcel of land with an area of 1.5 hectares, of which 1 hectare is developable. The remainder of the site is heavily wooded and protected by planning designations.

The site comprises a vacant blood donor, research and distribution centre, with associated laboratories, cold stores and office facilities. The main building in the centre of the site is 2 storeys at the front increasing to 3 and 4-storeys to the rear. Single storey workshops and garages are located to the south and south-west. There are two existing access points from Crescent Drive into the site.


Policy R18: B Development Principles

Within the draft policy the following development principles are listed:

a. vehicular access via Crescent Drive;
b. provision for public open space;
c. protect and enhance landscape boundaries to the south west of the site;
d. protect existing site trees within the development site; and
e. provision for pedestrian and cycle connections.

Fairview supports development principles a, c, d and e of the draft policy. Fairview does not consider "B Development Principle b. provision for public open space" to be sound.

This is for the following reason:

Site Constraints - The key constraints to developing the site comprise the site levels and large number of existing trees. The site slopes from north to south by 3 metres and north-west to south-east by 4 metres. As such there is a storey height difference between the front and back of the site and from each side.

Paragraph 5.181 in reference to Policy BE22: Open Space in New Development, useable open space is defined as 2000m2 in a single mass, giving people a space to be able to play. It is considered that given the substantial constraints relating to levels and tree coverage of the site, that creation of a public open space within the site is not a sound principle of development. Smaller pockets of amenity space that respond to the tree locations and ground levels would be a more appropriate development principle for this specific site.

DEVELOPMENT OF BLOOD TRANSFUSION CENTRE BY FAIRVIEW HOMES. With regards to the above development, of which we are in favour of, but would like to raise a few concerns: 1) Keep any housing development in scale with the land available, build using similar materials to match existing homes to maintain character and standard of dwellings in Crescent Drive. 2) Frontline properties to be kept to same height of existing houses in Crescent Drive. (there is scope for higher accommodation towards the back of the site where the land drops away) 3) Keep parking restrictions in place, to allow free flowing traffic for Brentwood Community Hospital. Provide enough parking spaces on development (1 space for 1 bed property and 2 for anything above. The road is already used as a cut through, causing stationery traffic during school drop off times. 4) Access to new development through existing entrance adjacent to Brentwood Community Hospital.
5) Maintain the roadside current hedging to the boundary of the land, and replace any trees or shrubs that maybe affected with the development. 6) Include sufficient green spaces within development ( 25sqm per home ).

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54 hectares of woodland open space - a hugely valuable amenity if and when brought back into beneficial use.

Refer to full scan of submission for detail
Propose modification to Policy R18. A response form and legal and historical note are submitted with a request to pas onto the site promoters. Having worked in the Councils legal services, leaving in May 2015, Papers were left with Christine Stephenson and recommended that Counsel's advice be taken, but nothing was done. The proposed redevelopment of the Regional Blood Transfusion Centre in Policy R19 provides an opportunity to restore the infrastructure and the open space, with buffer screening on Crescent Drive and vehicular access form Glanthams Road.
The 2011 Transfer of the Open Space to the Council provided for a footpath on the eastern site of the Community Hospital. I mention in paragraph 19 of the Note that the Policy site boundary is incorrect and should be regularised.
The Lawyers for NHS property may have ore historic documents, in particular pre-registration deeds. On first registration the registered estate is vested in the proprietor together with all interests subsisting for the benefit of the estate. The land has the benefit of appurtenant rights whether registered or not.
The 2011 Transfer was made with limited title guarantee, and excluded rights otherwise conferred by Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 and this rule in Wheeldon - v- Burrows. I infer that the Conveyancers acting for the NHS at that tie were unaware of the full factual position, No doubt the site owners will research records and take legal advice: I am happy to assist if that is considered appropriate. I enclose a second copy of this letter and enclosure for you to forward to the representatives of the land owner for this purpose.

A note is prepared with supporting evidence documental which should be referred to.
Summary
1. (i) The site of the North Thames Regional Transfusion Centre, (Draft Policy Rl8 ) proposed for residential redevelopment is now in an area of relative deficiency of open space. This was not always so however, but during the period of statutory control by the NHS, land management of access to open space was sadly neglected. The annexed historical and legal note with supporting documents show that the title to the land has appurtenant rights which should be exercised in conjunction with the Council in order to enforce rights over estate roads to the woodland open space and thereby to give proper and sustainable effect to NPPF policies.

(ii) Vehicular access should be taken only via private road section of Glanthams Road, restored to the full width legally available under the easement and estate covenants appurtenant to the freehold title. The legacy of Percy Alfred Bayman who planted trees and shrubs in the hospital grounds as well as gifting land should be respected and restored by enforcing the estate covenants appurtenant to the land title.

(iii) The restrictive covenant referred to in paragraph 2 of this reply may be modified by the application to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber but it should be noted that while statutory powers have enabled covenants to be overridden, that protection will cease on sale. A more significant issue is the existence of a building scheme satisfying the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal in Birdlip Limited -v- Hunter benefitting the site and also benefitting the Council owned open space. It seems the draft policy is predicated on a developer taking out indemnity insurance and packaging a residential development without reconnecting to the Glanthams Park estate road or facilitating access to the woodland open space. This would be inimical to the policies and purposes of the NPPF.

(iv) The proposed policy R18 does not take an integrated approach to housing and open space facilities, does not protect or enhance rights of way or take into account the possibility of adding to high quality rights of way.

(v) The developable area of the Rl8 site together with the need for on site open space should be reappraised along with the restoration of Glanthams Road, particularly as the site is within an area well served by public transport and could have a significant uplift in the average density beyond what is already proposed.

Historical overview
2. By the National Health Service Act 1946 local voluntary hospitals were brought into public ownership - the Act transferred to the Minister all hospitals with their endowments. Percy Alfred Bayman had transferred to the Trustees of a charity known as the Brentwood District Hospital land shown and coloured pink blue yellow green mauve and brown on the plan annexed to a transfer dated the 15th day of June 1931. The Transfer included the benefit of covenants on the part of the Minister of Transport contained in a conveyance dated the 1st day of March 1929 and made between the Minister of Transport and Mr. Bayman. The Trustees of the Charity covenanted to protect the neighbouring land being developed as a building estate and will not permit any building or wall on the land transferred other than the Hospital or any extension thereof including Nurses Homes Entrance Lodges or any buildings used in connection with the hospital.

3. I have prepared a historical note with supporting documents, listed at the end of the note, and this note is an appendix to this reply to Question 5. It will be seen that there is a need to restore the private road which has been encroached upon, and paragraph 98 of the NPPF should be pursued to allow public use of Glanthams Road along its full width. This would allow a footpath and cycle path and vehicles to use it to enable the woodland open space to be brought into positive use as a local public amenity. Glanthams Road could remain a private Road connecting to Worrin Road with a footpath/cycle path created by order under the Highways Act 1980 Section 26. Generally, once an easement or right of way has arisen it will continue indefinitely unless it is extinguished or released. Failure to use a right of way is not of itself sufficient to allow abandonment to be inferred: in the case of Benn-v-Hardinqe (1992) 60 P&CR 246 the Court of Appeal held that the failure to use the right for 175 years was not enough on its own to indicate an intention to abandon.

4. The site within Policy R18 has a boundary with number 17 Crescent Road which derives from the right to purchase granted in the Transfer of 1931 to Francis John Bassett (the brown land in that Transfer) to connect Glanthams Road with Crescent Road. The site abuts Glanthams Road at its South East comer, where adverse possession has taken place extending the gardens over several plots at Worrin Close. The land transferred by Mr. Bayman had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme for Glanthams Park estate whereby plot owners covenanted not to obstruct the passage along any estate road and to contribute to the repair and maintenance of the footway and half the carriage way. Although neither Glanthams Road nor the open space woodland have been maintained since the 1920s, this has been due to the intervention of statutory authorities. So the private estate covenants were suspended.

5. That position changes with the disposal of R18 policy site for residential development. The opportunity must now be taken to restore the private road and enforce the easements and covenants against obstructions to the passage along the unadopted part of Glanthams Road and also encroachments onto the open space at the rear of Glanthams Close, thereby enabling the woodland open space to be a public amenity in an area otherwise relatively deficient in open space. The developable area of the policy area R18 should be reviewed - there is little need for onsite public open space provision if the 9 and a half acres of woodland open space were restored and accessible.

6. Policies in the NPPF require the approach and modifications I put forward to the draft plan to achieve these planning policy objectives in the public interest. Paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note and the reply to question 6 refer.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54 hectares of woodland open space - a hugely valuable amenity if and when brought back into beneficial use.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54 hectares of woodland open space - a hugely valuable amenity if and when brought back into beneficial use.

Refer to full scan of submission for detail
Propose modification to Policy R18. A response form and legal and historical note are submitted with a request to pas onto the site promoters. Having worked in the Councils legal services, leaving in May 2015, Papers were left with Christine Stephenson and recommended that Counsel's advice be taken, but nothing was done. The proposed redevelopment of the Regional Blood Transfusion Centre in Policy R19 provides an opportunity to restore the infrastructure and the open space, with buffer screening on Crescent Drive and vehicular access form Glanthams Road.
The 2011 Transfer of the Open Space to the Council provided for a footpath on the eastern site of the Community Hospital. I mention in paragraph 19 of the Note that the Policy site boundary is incorrect and should be regularised.
The Lawyers for NHS property may have ore historic documents, in particular pre-registration deeds. On first registration the registered estate is vested in the proprietor together with all interests subsisting for the benefit of the estate. The land has the benefit of appurtenant rights whether registered or not.
The 2011 Transfer was made with limited title guarantee, and excluded rights otherwise conferred by Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 and this rule in Wheeldon - v- Burrows. I infer that the Conveyancers acting for the NHS at that tie were unaware of the full factual position, No doubt the site owners will research records and take legal advice: I am happy to assist if that is considered appropriate. I enclose a second copy of this letter and enclosure for you to forward to the representatives of the land owner for this purpose.

A note is prepared with supporting evidence documental which should be referred to.
Summary
1. (i) The site of the North Thames Regional Transfusion Centre, (Draft Policy Rl8 ) proposed for residential redevelopment is now in an area of relative deficiency of open space. This was not always so however, but during the period of statutory control by the NHS, land management of access to open space was sadly neglected. The annexed historical and legal note with supporting documents show that the title to the land has appurtenant rights which should be exercised in conjunction with the Council in order to enforce rights over estate roads to the woodland open space and thereby to give proper and sustainable effect to NPPF policies.

(ii) Vehicular access should be taken only via private road section of Glanthams Road, restored to the full width legally available under the easement and estate covenants appurtenant to the freehold title. The legacy of Percy Alfred Bayman who planted trees and shrubs in the hospital grounds as well as gifting land should be respected and restored by enforcing the estate covenants appurtenant to the land title.

(iii) The restrictive covenant referred to in paragraph 2 of this reply may be modified by the application to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber but it should be noted that while statutory powers have enabled covenants to be overridden, that protection will cease on sale. A more significant issue is the existence of a building scheme satisfying the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal in Birdlip Limited -v- Hunter benefitting the site and also benefitting the Council owned open space. It seems the draft policy is predicated on a developer taking out indemnity insurance and packaging a residential development without reconnecting to the Glanthams Park estate road or facilitating access to the woodland open space. This would be inimical to the policies and purposes of the NPPF.

(iv) The proposed policy R18 does not take an integrated approach to housing and open space facilities, does not protect or enhance rights of way or take into account the possibility of adding to high quality rights of way.

(v) The developable area of the Rl8 site together with the need for on site open space should be reappraised along with the restoration of Glanthams Road, particularly as the site is within an area well served by public transport and could have a significant uplift in the average density beyond what is already proposed.

Historical overview
2. By the National Health Service Act 1946 local voluntary hospitals were brought into public ownership - the Act transferred to the Minister all hospitals with their endowments. Percy Alfred Bayman had transferred to the Trustees of a charity known as the Brentwood District Hospital land shown and coloured pink blue yellow green mauve and brown on the plan annexed to a transfer dated the 15th day of June 1931. The Transfer included the benefit of covenants on the part of the Minister of Transport contained in a conveyance dated the 1st day of March 1929 and made between the Minister of Transport and Mr. Bayman. The Trustees of the Charity covenanted to protect the neighbouring land being developed as a building estate and will not permit any building or wall on the land transferred other than the Hospital or any extension thereof including Nurses Homes Entrance Lodges or any buildings used in connection with the hospital.

3. I have prepared a historical note with supporting documents, listed at the end of the note, and this note is an appendix to this reply to Question 5. It will be seen that there is a need to restore the private road which has been encroached upon, and paragraph 98 of the NPPF should be pursued to allow public use of Glanthams Road along its full width. This would allow a footpath and cycle path and vehicles to use it to enable the woodland open space to be brought into positive use as a local public amenity. Glanthams Road could remain a private Road connecting to Worrin Road with a footpath/cycle path created by order under the Highways Act 1980 Section 26. Generally, once an easement or right of way has arisen it will continue indefinitely unless it is extinguished or released. Failure to use a right of way is not of itself sufficient to allow abandonment to be inferred: in the case of Benn-v-Hardinqe (1992) 60 P&CR 246 the Court of Appeal held that the failure to use the right for 175 years was not enough on its own to indicate an intention to abandon.

4. The site within Policy R18 has a boundary with number 17 Crescent Road which derives from the right to purchase granted in the Transfer of 1931 to Francis John Bassett (the brown land in that Transfer) to connect Glanthams Road with Crescent Road. The site abuts Glanthams Road at its South East comer, where adverse possession has taken place extending the gardens over several plots at Worrin Close. The land transferred by Mr. Bayman had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme for Glanthams Park estate whereby plot owners covenanted not to obstruct the passage along any estate road and to contribute to the repair and maintenance of the footway and half the carriage way. Although neither Glanthams Road nor the open space woodland have been maintained since the 1920s, this has been due to the intervention of statutory authorities. So the private estate covenants were suspended.

5. That position changes with the disposal of R18 policy site for residential development. The opportunity must now be taken to restore the private road and enforce the easements and covenants against obstructions to the passage along the unadopted part of Glanthams Road and also encroachments onto the open space at the rear of Glanthams Close, thereby enabling the woodland open space to be a public amenity in an area otherwise relatively deficient in open space. The developable area of the policy area R18 should be reviewed - there is little need for onsite public open space provision if the 9 and a half acres of woodland open space were restored and accessible.

6. Policies in the NPPF require the approach and modifications I put forward to the draft plan to achieve these planning policy objectives in the public interest. Paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note and the reply to question 6 refer.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54 hectares of woodland open space - a hugely valuable amenity if and when brought back into beneficial use.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54

Refer to full scan of submission for detail
Propose modification to Policy R18. A response form and legal and historical note are submitted with a request to pas onto the site promoters. Having worked in the Councils legal services, leaving in May 2015, Papers were left with Christine Stephenson and recommended that Counsel's advice be taken, but nothing was done. The proposed redevelopment of the Regional Blood Transfusion Centre in Policy R19 provides an opportunity to restore the infrastructure and the open space, with buffer screening on Crescent Drive and vehicular access form Glanthams Road.
The 2011 Transfer of the Open Space to the Council provided for a footpath on the eastern site of the Community Hospital. I mention in paragraph 19 of the Note that the Policy site boundary is incorrect and should be regularised.
The Lawyers for NHS property may have ore historic documents, in particular pre-registration deeds. On first registration the registered estate is vested in the proprietor together with all interests subsisting for the benefit of the estate. The land has the benefit of appurtenant rights whether registered or not.
The 2011 Transfer was made with limited title guarantee, and excluded rights otherwise conferred by Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 and this rule in Wheeldon - v- Burrows. I infer that the Conveyancers acting for the NHS at that tie were unaware of the full factual position, No doubt the site owners will research records and take legal advice: I am happy to assist if that is considered appropriate. I enclose a second copy of this letter and enclosure for you to forward to the representatives of the land owner for this purpose.

A note is prepared with supporting evidence documental which should be referred to.
Summary
1. (i) The site of the North Thames Regional Transfusion Centre, (Draft Policy Rl8 ) proposed for residential redevelopment is now in an area of relative deficiency of open space. This was not always so however, but during the period of statutory control by the NHS, land management of access to open space was sadly neglected. The annexed historical and legal note with supporting documents show that the title to the land has appurtenant rights which should be exercised in conjunction with the Council in order to enforce rights over estate roads to the woodland open space and thereby to give proper and sustainable effect to NPPF policies.

(ii) Vehicular access should be taken only via private road section of Glanthams Road, restored to the full width legally available under the easement and estate covenants appurtenant to the freehold title. The legacy of Percy Alfred Bayman who planted trees and shrubs in the hospital grounds as well as gifting land should be respected and restored by enforcing the estate covenants appurtenant to the land title.

(iii) The restrictive covenant referred to in paragraph 2 of this reply may be modified by the application to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber but it should be noted that while statutory powers have enabled covenants to be overridden, that protection will cease on sale. A more significant issue is the existence of a building scheme satisfying the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal in Birdlip Limited -v- Hunter benefitting the site and also benefitting the Council owned open space. It seems the draft policy is predicated on a developer taking out indemnity insurance and packaging a residential development without reconnecting to the Glanthams Park estate road or facilitating access to the woodland open space. This would be inimical to the policies and purposes of the NPPF.

(iv) The proposed policy R18 does not take an integrated approach to housing and open space facilities, does not protect or enhance rights of way or take into account the possibility of adding to high quality rights of way.

(v) The developable area of the Rl8 site together with the need for on site open space should be reappraised along with the restoration of Glanthams Road, particularly as the site is within an area well served by public transport and could have a significant uplift in the average density beyond what is already proposed.

Historical overview
2. By the National Health Service Act 1946 local voluntary hospitals were brought into public ownership - the Act transferred to the Minister all hospitals with their endowments. Percy Alfred Bayman had transferred to the Trustees of a charity known as the Brentwood District Hospital land shown and coloured pink blue yellow green mauve and brown on the plan annexed to a transfer dated the 15th day of June 1931. The Transfer included the benefit of covenants on the part of the Minister of Transport contained in a conveyance dated the 1st day of March 1929 and made between the Minister of Transport and Mr. Bayman. The Trustees of the Charity covenanted to protect the neighbouring land being developed as a building estate and will not permit any building or wall on the land transferred other than the Hospital or any extension thereof including Nurses Homes Entrance Lodges or any buildings used in connection with the hospital.

3. I have prepared a historical note with supporting documents, listed at the end of the note, and this note is an appendix to this reply to Question 5. It will be seen that there is a need to restore the private road which has been encroached upon, and paragraph 98 of the NPPF should be pursued to allow public use of Glanthams Road along its full width. This would allow a footpath and cycle path and vehicles to use it to enable the woodland open space to be brought into positive use as a local public amenity. Glanthams Road could remain a private Road connecting to Worrin Road with a footpath/cycle path created by order under the Highways Act 1980 Section 26. Generally, once an easement or right of way has arisen it will continue indefinitely unless it is extinguished or released. Failure to use a right of way is not of itself sufficient to allow abandonment to be inferred: in the case of Benn-v-Hardinqe (1992) 60 P&CR 246 the Court of Appeal held that the failure to use the right for 175 years was not enough on its own to indicate an intention to abandon.

4. The site within Policy R18 has a boundary with number 17 Crescent Road which derives from the right to purchase granted in the Transfer of 1931 to Francis John Bassett (the brown land in that Transfer) to connect Glanthams Road with Crescent Road. The site abuts Glanthams Road at its South East comer, where adverse possession has taken place extending the gardens over several plots at Worrin Close. The land transferred by Mr. Bayman had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme for Glanthams Park estate whereby plot owners covenanted not to obstruct the passage along any estate road and to contribute to the repair and maintenance of the footway and half the carriage way. Although neither Glanthams Road nor the open space woodland have been maintained since the 1920s, this has been due to the intervention of statutory authorities. So the private estate covenants were suspended.

5. That position changes with the disposal of R18 policy site for residential development. The opportunity must now be taken to restore the private road and enforce the easements and covenants against obstructions to the passage along the unadopted part of Glanthams Road and also encroachments onto the open space at the rear of Glanthams Close, thereby enabling the woodland open space to be a public amenity in an area otherwise relatively deficient in open space. The developable area of the policy area R18 should be reviewed - there is little need for onsite public open space provision if the 9 and a half acres of woodland open space were restored and accessible.

6. Policies in the NPPF require the approach and modifications I put forward to the draft plan to achieve these planning policy objectives in the public interest. Paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note and the reply to question 6 refer.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54 hectares of woodland open space - a hugely valuable amenity if and when brought back into beneficial use.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54

Refer to full scan of submission for detail
Propose modification to Policy R18. A response form and legal and historical note are submitted with a request to pas onto the site promoters. Having worked in the Councils legal services, leaving in May 2015, Papers were left with Christine Stephenson and recommended that Counsel's advice be taken, but nothing was done. The proposed redevelopment of the Regional Blood Transfusion Centre in Policy R19 provides an opportunity to restore the infrastructure and the open space, with buffer screening on Crescent Drive and vehicular access form Glanthams Road.
The 2011 Transfer of the Open Space to the Council provided for a footpath on the eastern site of the Community Hospital. I mention in paragraph 19 of the Note that the Policy site boundary is incorrect and should be regularised.
The Lawyers for NHS property may have ore historic documents, in particular pre-registration deeds. On first registration the registered estate is vested in the proprietor together with all interests subsisting for the benefit of the estate. The land has the benefit of appurtenant rights whether registered or not.
The 2011 Transfer was made with limited title guarantee, and excluded rights otherwise conferred by Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 and this rule in Wheeldon - v- Burrows. I infer that the Conveyancers acting for the NHS at that tie were unaware of the full factual position, No doubt the site owners will research records and take legal advice: I am happy to assist if that is considered appropriate. I enclose a second copy of this letter and enclosure for you to forward to the representatives of the land owner for this purpose.

A note is prepared with supporting evidence documental which should be referred to.
Summary
1. (i) The site of the North Thames Regional Transfusion Centre, (Draft Policy Rl8 ) proposed for residential redevelopment is now in an area of relative deficiency of open space. This was not always so however, but during the period of statutory control by the NHS, land management of access to open space was sadly neglected. The annexed historical and legal note with supporting documents show that the title to the land has appurtenant rights which should be exercised in conjunction with the Council in order to enforce rights over estate roads to the woodland open space and thereby to give proper and sustainable effect to NPPF policies.

(ii) Vehicular access should be taken only via private road section of Glanthams Road, restored to the full width legally available under the easement and estate covenants appurtenant to the freehold title. The legacy of Percy Alfred Bayman who planted trees and shrubs in the hospital grounds as well as gifting land should be respected and restored by enforcing the estate covenants appurtenant to the land title.

(iii) The restrictive covenant referred to in paragraph 2 of this reply may be modified by the application to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber but it should be noted that while statutory powers have enabled covenants to be overridden, that protection will cease on sale. A more significant issue is the existence of a building scheme satisfying the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal in Birdlip Limited -v- Hunter benefitting the site and also benefitting the Council owned open space. It seems the draft policy is predicated on a developer taking out indemnity insurance and packaging a residential development without reconnecting to the Glanthams Park estate road or facilitating access to the woodland open space. This would be inimical to the policies and purposes of the NPPF.

(iv) The proposed policy R18 does not take an integrated approach to housing and open space facilities, does not protect or enhance rights of way or take into account the possibility of adding to high quality rights of way.

(v) The developable area of the Rl8 site together with the need for on site open space should be reappraised along with the restoration of Glanthams Road, particularly as the site is within an area well served by public transport and could have a significant uplift in the average density beyond what is already proposed.

Historical overview
2. By the National Health Service Act 1946 local voluntary hospitals were brought into public ownership - the Act transferred to the Minister all hospitals with their endowments. Percy Alfred Bayman had transferred to the Trustees of a charity known as the Brentwood District Hospital land shown and coloured pink blue yellow green mauve and brown on the plan annexed to a transfer dated the 15th day of June 1931. The Transfer included the benefit of covenants on the part of the Minister of Transport contained in a conveyance dated the 1st day of March 1929 and made between the Minister of Transport and Mr. Bayman. The Trustees of the Charity covenanted to protect the neighbouring land being developed as a building estate and will not permit any building or wall on the land transferred other than the Hospital or any extension thereof including Nurses Homes Entrance Lodges or any buildings used in connection with the hospital.

3. I have prepared a historical note with supporting documents, listed at the end of the note, and this note is an appendix to this reply to Question 5. It will be seen that there is a need to restore the private road which has been encroached upon, and paragraph 98 of the NPPF should be pursued to allow public use of Glanthams Road along its full width. This would allow a footpath and cycle path and vehicles to use it to enable the woodland open space to be brought into positive use as a local public amenity. Glanthams Road could remain a private Road connecting to Worrin Road with a footpath/cycle path created by order under the Highways Act 1980 Section 26. Generally, once an easement or right of way has arisen it will continue indefinitely unless it is extinguished or released. Failure to use a right of way is not of itself sufficient to allow abandonment to be inferred: in the case of Benn-v-Hardinqe (1992) 60 P&CR 246 the Court of Appeal held that the failure to use the right for 175 years was not enough on its own to indicate an intention to abandon.

4. The site within Policy R18 has a boundary with number 17 Crescent Road which derives from the right to purchase granted in the Transfer of 1931 to Francis John Bassett (the brown land in that Transfer) to connect Glanthams Road with Crescent Road. The site abuts Glanthams Road at its South East comer, where adverse possession has taken place extending the gardens over several plots at Worrin Close. The land transferred by Mr. Bayman had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme for Glanthams Park estate whereby plot owners covenanted not to obstruct the passage along any estate road and to contribute to the repair and maintenance of the footway and half the carriage way. Although neither Glanthams Road nor the open space woodland have been maintained since the 1920s, this has been due to the intervention of statutory authorities. So the private estate covenants were suspended.

5. That position changes with the disposal of R18 policy site for residential development. The opportunity must now be taken to restore the private road and enforce the easements and covenants against obstructions to the passage along the unadopted part of Glanthams Road and also encroachments onto the open space at the rear of Glanthams Close, thereby enabling the woodland open space to be a public amenity in an area otherwise relatively deficient in open space. The developable area of the policy area R18 should be reviewed - there is little need for onsite public open space provision if the 9 and a half acres of woodland open space were restored and accessible.

6. Policies in the NPPF require the approach and modifications I put forward to the draft plan to achieve these planning policy objectives in the public interest. Paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note and the reply to question 6 refer.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54 hectares of woodland open space - a hugely valuable amenity if and when brought back into beneficial use.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54

Refer to full scan of submission for detail
Propose modification to Policy R18. A response form and legal and historical note are submitted with a request to pas onto the site promoters. Having worked in the Councils legal services, leaving in May 2015, Papers were left with Christine Stephenson and recommended that Counsel's advice be taken, but nothing was done. The proposed redevelopment of the Regional Blood Transfusion Centre in Policy R19 provides an opportunity to restore the infrastructure and the open space, with buffer screening on Crescent Drive and vehicular access form Glanthams Road.
The 2011 Transfer of the Open Space to the Council provided for a footpath on the eastern site of the Community Hospital. I mention in paragraph 19 of the Note that the Policy site boundary is incorrect and should be regularised.
The Lawyers for NHS property may have ore historic documents, in particular pre-registration deeds. On first registration the registered estate is vested in the proprietor together with all interests subsisting for the benefit of the estate. The land has the benefit of appurtenant rights whether registered or not.
The 2011 Transfer was made with limited title guarantee, and excluded rights otherwise conferred by Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 and this rule in Wheeldon - v- Burrows. I infer that the Conveyancers acting for the NHS at that tie were unaware of the full factual position, No doubt the site owners will research records and take legal advice: I am happy to assist if that is considered appropriate. I enclose a second copy of this letter and enclosure for you to forward to the representatives of the land owner for this purpose.

A note is prepared with supporting evidence documental which should be referred to.
Summary
1. (i) The site of the North Thames Regional Transfusion Centre, (Draft Policy Rl8 ) proposed for residential redevelopment is now in an area of relative deficiency of open space. This was not always so however, but during the period of statutory control by the NHS, land management of access to open space was sadly neglected. The annexed historical and legal note with supporting documents show that the title to the land has appurtenant rights which should be exercised in conjunction with the Council in order to enforce rights over estate roads to the woodland open space and thereby to give proper and sustainable effect to NPPF policies.

(ii) Vehicular access should be taken only via private road section of Glanthams Road, restored to the full width legally available under the easement and estate covenants appurtenant to the freehold title. The legacy of Percy Alfred Bayman who planted trees and shrubs in the hospital grounds as well as gifting land should be respected and restored by enforcing the estate covenants appurtenant to the land title.

(iii) The restrictive covenant referred to in paragraph 2 of this reply may be modified by the application to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber but it should be noted that while statutory powers have enabled covenants to be overridden, that protection will cease on sale. A more significant issue is the existence of a building scheme satisfying the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal in Birdlip Limited -v- Hunter benefitting the site and also benefitting the Council owned open space. It seems the draft policy is predicated on a developer taking out indemnity insurance and packaging a residential development without reconnecting to the Glanthams Park estate road or facilitating access to the woodland open space. This would be inimical to the policies and purposes of the NPPF.

(iv) The proposed policy R18 does not take an integrated approach to housing and open space facilities, does not protect or enhance rights of way or take into account the possibility of adding to high quality rights of way.

(v) The developable area of the Rl8 site together with the need for on site open space should be reappraised along with the restoration of Glanthams Road, particularly as the site is within an area well served by public transport and could have a significant uplift in the average density beyond what is already proposed.

Historical overview
2. By the National Health Service Act 1946 local voluntary hospitals were brought into public ownership - the Act transferred to the Minister all hospitals with their endowments. Percy Alfred Bayman had transferred to the Trustees of a charity known as the Brentwood District Hospital land shown and coloured pink blue yellow green mauve and brown on the plan annexed to a transfer dated the 15th day of June 1931. The Transfer included the benefit of covenants on the part of the Minister of Transport contained in a conveyance dated the 1st day of March 1929 and made between the Minister of Transport and Mr. Bayman. The Trustees of the Charity covenanted to protect the neighbouring land being developed as a building estate and will not permit any building or wall on the land transferred other than the Hospital or any extension thereof including Nurses Homes Entrance Lodges or any buildings used in connection with the hospital.

3. I have prepared a historical note with supporting documents, listed at the end of the note, and this note is an appendix to this reply to Question 5. It will be seen that there is a need to restore the private road which has been encroached upon, and paragraph 98 of the NPPF should be pursued to allow public use of Glanthams Road along its full width. This would allow a footpath and cycle path and vehicles to use it to enable the woodland open space to be brought into positive use as a local public amenity. Glanthams Road could remain a private Road connecting to Worrin Road with a footpath/cycle path created by order under the Highways Act 1980 Section 26. Generally, once an easement or right of way has arisen it will continue indefinitely unless it is extinguished or released. Failure to use a right of way is not of itself sufficient to allow abandonment to be inferred: in the case of Benn-v-Hardinqe (1992) 60 P&CR 246 the Court of Appeal held that the failure to use the right for 175 years was not enough on its own to indicate an intention to abandon.

4. The site within Policy R18 has a boundary with number 17 Crescent Road which derives from the right to purchase granted in the Transfer of 1931 to Francis John Bassett (the brown land in that Transfer) to connect Glanthams Road with Crescent Road. The site abuts Glanthams Road at its South East comer, where adverse possession has taken place extending the gardens over several plots at Worrin Close. The land transferred by Mr. Bayman had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme for Glanthams Park estate whereby plot owners covenanted not to obstruct the passage along any estate road and to contribute to the repair and maintenance of the footway and half the carriage way. Although neither Glanthams Road nor the open space woodland have been maintained since the 1920s, this has been due to the intervention of statutory authorities. So the private estate covenants were suspended.

5. That position changes with the disposal of R18 policy site for residential development. The opportunity must now be taken to restore the private road and enforce the easements and covenants against obstructions to the passage along the unadopted part of Glanthams Road and also encroachments onto the open space at the rear of Glanthams Close, thereby enabling the woodland open space to be a public amenity in an area otherwise relatively deficient in open space. The developable area of the policy area R18 should be reviewed - there is little need for onsite public open space provision if the 9 and a half acres of woodland open space were restored and accessible.

6. Policies in the NPPF require the approach and modifications I put forward to the draft plan to achieve these planning policy objectives in the public interest. Paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note and the reply to question 6 refer.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54 hectares of woodland open space - a hugely valuable amenity if and when brought back into beneficial use.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54

Refer to full scan of submission for detail
Propose modification to Policy R18. A response form and legal and historical note are submitted with a request to pas onto the site promoters. Having worked in the Councils legal services, leaving in May 2015, Papers were left with Christine Stephenson and recommended that Counsel's advice be taken, but nothing was done. The proposed redevelopment of the Regional Blood Transfusion Centre in Policy R19 provides an opportunity to restore the infrastructure and the open space, with buffer screening on Crescent Drive and vehicular access form Glanthams Road.
The 2011 Transfer of the Open Space to the Council provided for a footpath on the eastern site of the Community Hospital. I mention in paragraph 19 of the Note that the Policy site boundary is incorrect and should be regularised.
The Lawyers for NHS property may have ore historic documents, in particular pre-registration deeds. On first registration the registered estate is vested in the proprietor together with all interests subsisting for the benefit of the estate. The land has the benefit of appurtenant rights whether registered or not.
The 2011 Transfer was made with limited title guarantee, and excluded rights otherwise conferred by Section 62 Law of Property Act 1925 and this rule in Wheeldon - v- Burrows. I infer that the Conveyancers acting for the NHS at that tie were unaware of the full factual position, No doubt the site owners will research records and take legal advice: I am happy to assist if that is considered appropriate. I enclose a second copy of this letter and enclosure for you to forward to the representatives of the land owner for this purpose.

A note is prepared with supporting evidence documental which should be referred to.
Summary
1. (i) The site of the North Thames Regional Transfusion Centre, (Draft Policy Rl8 ) proposed for residential redevelopment is now in an area of relative deficiency of open space. This was not always so however, but during the period of statutory control by the NHS, land management of access to open space was sadly neglected. The annexed historical and legal note with supporting documents show that the title to the land has appurtenant rights which should be exercised in conjunction with the Council in order to enforce rights over estate roads to the woodland open space and thereby to give proper and sustainable effect to NPPF policies.

(ii) Vehicular access should be taken only via private road section of Glanthams Road, restored to the full width legally available under the easement and estate covenants appurtenant to the freehold title. The legacy of Percy Alfred Bayman who planted trees and shrubs in the hospital grounds as well as gifting land should be respected and restored by enforcing the estate covenants appurtenant to the land title.

(iii) The restrictive covenant referred to in paragraph 2 of this reply may be modified by the application to the Upper Tribunal Lands Chamber but it should be noted that while statutory powers have enabled covenants to be overridden, that protection will cease on sale. A more significant issue is the existence of a building scheme satisfying the criteria laid down by the Court of Appeal in Birdlip Limited -v- Hunter benefitting the site and also benefitting the Council owned open space. It seems the draft policy is predicated on a developer taking out indemnity insurance and packaging a residential development without reconnecting to the Glanthams Park estate road or facilitating access to the woodland open space. This would be inimical to the policies and purposes of the NPPF.

(iv) The proposed policy R18 does not take an integrated approach to housing and open space facilities, does not protect or enhance rights of way or take into account the possibility of adding to high quality rights of way.

(v) The developable area of the Rl8 site together with the need for on site open space should be reappraised along with the restoration of Glanthams Road, particularly as the site is within an area well served by public transport and could have a significant uplift in the average density beyond what is already proposed.

Historical overview
2. By the National Health Service Act 1946 local voluntary hospitals were brought into public ownership - the Act transferred to the Minister all hospitals with their endowments. Percy Alfred Bayman had transferred to the Trustees of a charity known as the Brentwood District Hospital land shown and coloured pink blue yellow green mauve and brown on the plan annexed to a transfer dated the 15th day of June 1931. The Transfer included the benefit of covenants on the part of the Minister of Transport contained in a conveyance dated the 1st day of March 1929 and made between the Minister of Transport and Mr. Bayman. The Trustees of the Charity covenanted to protect the neighbouring land being developed as a building estate and will not permit any building or wall on the land transferred other than the Hospital or any extension thereof including Nurses Homes Entrance Lodges or any buildings used in connection with the hospital.

3. I have prepared a historical note with supporting documents, listed at the end of the note, and this note is an appendix to this reply to Question 5. It will be seen that there is a need to restore the private road which has been encroached upon, and paragraph 98 of the NPPF should be pursued to allow public use of Glanthams Road along its full width. This would allow a footpath and cycle path and vehicles to use it to enable the woodland open space to be brought into positive use as a local public amenity. Glanthams Road could remain a private Road connecting to Worrin Road with a footpath/cycle path created by order under the Highways Act 1980 Section 26. Generally, once an easement or right of way has arisen it will continue indefinitely unless it is extinguished or released. Failure to use a right of way is not of itself sufficient to allow abandonment to be inferred: in the case of Benn-v-Hardinqe (1992) 60 P&CR 246 the Court of Appeal held that the failure to use the right for 175 years was not enough on its own to indicate an intention to abandon.

4. The site within Policy R18 has a boundary with number 17 Crescent Road which derives from the right to purchase granted in the Transfer of 1931 to Francis John Bassett (the brown land in that Transfer) to connect Glanthams Road with Crescent Road. The site abuts Glanthams Road at its South East comer, where adverse possession has taken place extending the gardens over several plots at Worrin Close. The land transferred by Mr. Bayman had the benefit of covenants in a building scheme for Glanthams Park estate whereby plot owners covenanted not to obstruct the passage along any estate road and to contribute to the repair and maintenance of the footway and half the carriage way. Although neither Glanthams Road nor the open space woodland have been maintained since the 1920s, this has been due to the intervention of statutory authorities. So the private estate covenants were suspended.

5. That position changes with the disposal of R18 policy site for residential development. The opportunity must now be taken to restore the private road and enforce the easements and covenants against obstructions to the passage along the unadopted part of Glanthams Road and also encroachments onto the open space at the rear of Glanthams Close, thereby enabling the woodland open space to be a public amenity in an area otherwise relatively deficient in open space. The developable area of the policy area R18 should be reviewed - there is little need for onsite public open space provision if the 9 and a half acres of woodland open space were restored and accessible.

6. Policies in the NPPF require the approach and modifications I put forward to the draft plan to achieve these planning policy objectives in the public interest. Paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note and the reply to question 6 refer.

1. Development Principle Aa -Amount and type of development
Delete" around 55" and substitute "up to BO, depending on the amount of on-site private open space and onsite land take for vehicular movement via Glanthams Road"
Reasons: (a) The site is well served by Public Transport, and adjoins the Community Hospital. Paragraphs 122-123 NPPF support a significant uplift in the average density.

(b) The draft policy proposes on-site open space and main vehicular access from Crescent Road. These are wasteful of the immediate infrastructure which should be restored, allowing more efficient and sustainable use of the site, the adjoining road infrastructure and the adjoining woodland open space of over nine acres.

2. Development principle Ba. and Paragraph 9.166 should be deleted. Principle Ba should read: The main vehicular access will be via the private road Glanthams Road which will be restored to its condition and width on the Appointed Day {1 July 1948}. Paragraph 9.166 should read: The site abuts the Private Road Glanthams Road. Reason: It is not an effective use of land to abandon this right of way and estate road

3. Development principle b - provision of on-site public open space - should be deleted. This should be replaced by the following:
b. Prior to construction of residential units a scheme for restoration of the Woodland Open space to the South west shall be implemented by the clearance of dead wood and timber in conjunction with the local planning authority, with provision of direct access from the site to the woodland and footpaths.

The last 14 words in the first sentence of paragraph 9.169 should be deleted
Reasons for deletion: As set out in paragraph 21 of the attached historical and legal note, the opportunity should, and I suggest must, be grasped firmly in the redevelopment of Policy area R18 to restore the woodland open space as a local amenity to benefit the public as well all as future residents of the proposed redevelopment site. The last 14 words of paragraph 9.169 will be redundant if the modification to Development principle b is accepted, as the design of such a scheme will take an integrated approach and enhance access from the development to the open space. The existing wording implies sensitive boundary segregation rather than improved functional access to 2.54 hectares of woodland open space - a hugely valuable amenity if and when brought back into beneficial use.