Policy CP10: Green Belt
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 459
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Sans Souci Enterprises Limited
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
See reservations expressed with respect to Policies S1, S2 and CP1.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 476
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: West Horndon Parish Council
Agent: SJK Planning
3. A large proportion of the land allocation at West Horndon is within Metropolitan Green Belt, and no exceptional circumstances have been put forward to justify release.
The larger part of the allocation is within Green Belt. NPPF guidance is clear that development in Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful.
Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt land. The Government has recently clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute the exceptional circumstances to justify such loss. The Borough's Plan contradicts this by suggesting that Green Belt should be released to satisfy housing demand.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 486
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Brentwood School
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
A large part of the School's site is defined as Green Belt. It is the School's contention that their landholdings currently lying in the Green Belt provides no real Green Belt function. It really does not make sense to maintain the School's land around Middleton Hall Lane as Green Belt where it is in the centre or close to the centre of the town. Other development management policies relating to urban open space can protect the Council's objectives of maintaining quality of life
and community infrastructure.
It is therefore requested Brentwood schools landholdings be removed from the Green Belt.
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 608
Received: 23/09/2013
Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council
The first part of the first sentence of the policy should be changed to read "The current Green belt boundaries across the Borough will be retained subject to etc".
We believe this is a more positive less woolly form of words than "general extent" and is still leaves open the opportunity to make minor changes.
See attachments
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 637
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Mr Graham Hesketh
More worrying is the Policy CP10 Green Belt. The following settlements are excluded from the Green Belt - Blackmore, Brentwood, Doddinghurst etc (I am not sure what this means?)
It is pleasing to read throughout the report the Council is commited to the Green Belt but there are to many 'Ifs and Buts' e.g. Limited development, including infilling, will take place in the village, other than small scale development to meet identified needs very little development is expected.
More worrying is the Policy CP10 Green Belt. The following settlements are excluded from the Green Belt - Blackmore, Brentwood, Doddinghurst etc (I am not sure what this means?)
It is also worrying in Policy DM11 New Developments in the Green Belt the very special circumstances can be interpreted in many ways and the 5 proposals in which these interpretations can take place are very broad!
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 648
Received: 25/09/2013
Respondent: Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd
Agent: Barton Willmore
Our client supports the exclusion of West Horndon from the Green Belt as identified on the Policies Map.
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 666
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Cllr Noelle Hones
Support the Parish Council's standpoint of protecting the Green Belt, Conservation Areas and incorporating the Village Design Statement into the LDP.
I support the Parish Council's standpoint of protecting the Green Belt, Conservation Areas and incorporating the Village Design Statement into the LDP.
I cannot support building a development of 130 homes in Mountnessing on the site of the Ingatestone Garden Centre. This would go against the coalescence of the two villages and would put too much pressure on the infrastructure of Ingatestone - particularly sewerage, transport and medical facilities. A better site would be Thoby Priory.
I am also against the increasing trend of "back garden development" which we seem to be seeing in Ingatestone.
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 671
Received: 03/10/2013
Respondent: Cllr Tony Sleep
I support the Parish Council's standpoint of protecting the Green Belt, Conservation Areas and incorporating the Village Design Statement into the LDP.
I support the Parish Council's standpoint of protecting the Green Belt, Conservation Areas and incorporating the Village Design Statement into the LDP.
I cannot support building a development of 130 homes in Mountnessing on the site of the Ingatestone Garden Centre. This would go against the coalescence of the two villages and would put too much pressure on the infrastructure of Ingatestone - particularly sewerage, transport and medical facilities. A better site would be Thoby Priory.
I am also against the increasing trend of "back garden development" which we seem to be seeing in Ingatestone.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 685
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: The Croll Group
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
In accordance with this policy to allow for minor amendments to the GB, we would like our clients land included within the West Horndon Strategic allocation. This would follow the current precedent of allocating GB land within this location of the Borough for development.
See Attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 693
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Chelmsford Diocesan Board of Finance
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
The proposed policy includes provision for minor amendments to the gb, where new development has the effect of consolidating settlement patterns to create a defensible boundary. Taking this provision into consideration, our clients site adjoins the settlement boundary of Hutton and is well defined with Hutton village Road providing a defensible barrier between development and the gb. Allocating our clients site would provide a natural rounding off the village settlement boundary.
See Attachment
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 711
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: CLM Ltd
Agent: JTS Partnership LLP
Given the inability of the Council to make provision for 'objectively assessed housing need' the Council must seek to maximise the amount of housing land it can allocate in accordance with its preferred spatial strategy (as expressed in Policy CP1), including the identification of existing developed sites in the Green Belt. Whilst not advocating a 'root and branch' review of the Green Belt, the Council should also review its boundaries and remove that land which clearly does not serve one of the Green Belt functions as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 747
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Countryside Properties
Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd
Policy CP10: Green Belt should be amended as follows:
"The general extent of the Green Belt across the Borough will be retained subject to allocations made in this Plan affecting Green Belt and where new development has had the effect of consolidating settlement patterns so as to create a defensible boundary. The following settlements..."
1.The spatial strategy is not founded on an 'adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence' base and is therefore fundamentally flawed, failing to accord with the NPPF (paragraph 158). The Plan adopts an arbitrary approach to residential development by restricting development in the Green Belt rather than positively seeking opportunities to meet the development needs of the Borough. There is no comprehensive justification for failing to meet objectively assessed needs.
2.Despite identifying that the Borough cannot meet its own housing needs, the Council has failed to seek to meet those needs by cooperating with neighbouring authorities, summarised as follows:
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's Preferred Spatial Strategy which does not seek to accommodate its full housing need.
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's approach of looking to neighbouring authorities to meet unmet need.
*The City Council raises concerns regarding the deliverability of sites, such as the strategic allocations in West Horndon, identified for housing in the Preferred Options Local Plan.
*The City Council objects to the Preferred Options Local Plan being published for public consultation prior to key relevant evidence base documents being made available.
Proposed Changes to the Plan: Policy S1: Spatial Strategy should be amended to change the word 'redevelopment' in the first paragraph to 'development'. The final paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following wording:
"Amendments shall be made to the Green Belt to enable the following development:
i. Strategic Allocation at West Horndon;
ii. Allocation at land east of Bayleys Mead; and
iii. Existing developed sites in the Green Belt."
3. The Key Diagram ( figure 2.10) should be amended to show housing sites and the release of Green Belt land in accordance with representations and policies S1 and S2.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 779
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Crest Nicholson
Agent: Bidwells
The Council attaches great importance to Green Belt and its permanence however it also allows boundaries to be altered in exceptional circumstances through the preparation or revision of the Local Plan (paragraph 83). Due to the considerable deficit between the targeted growth and OAN one would expect that exceptional circumstances exist and therefore a robust assessment of Green Belt boundaries is justified in this instance. As this is the only way a Green Belt release can be justified, to ensure the most appropriate growth strategy is proposed and the least sensitive sites developed.
See attached Report.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 797
Received: 26/09/2013
Respondent: EA Strategic Land LLP
Agent: Iceni Projects Limited
Support exclusion of West Horndon from Green Belt. However, Borough settlement boundaries need to include sufficient land to ensure flexibility to deliver housing with associated services, infrastructure and facilities.
The full extent of the proposed West Horndon settlement boundary has not been illustrated, which should be published for consultation ASAP.
A wider allocation of land west of Thorndon Avenue is requested, creating a defensible boundary formed by the A127 to the north, Childerditch Lane to the west, and railway to the south. Alternatively, reference is needed for an early Green Belt review over the course of the Plan period.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 818
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd
Agent: Barton Willmore
The draft Local Plan provides an opportunity to review Green Belt boundaries and to make adjustments where necessary. In Brentwood Borough, where over 80% of the Borough lies within the Green Belt, it is inevitable that in order to meet housing land requirements, a review of the Green Belt boundary is necessary as part of the Local Plan process. It is therefore a real concern that a key document in the evidence base to this policy is not available at the time of the consultation process- Landscape Sensitivity Testing and Green Belt Assessment.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 833
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Crest Nicholson
Agent: Savills UK
In order to meet BBC's significant housing shortfall against OAN, it is recognised that Green Belt land will need to be released around Brentwood town as the largest settlement in the Borough. Within BBC's SHLAA (2011) and "Draft Site Assessment" (July 2013) which supports the Local Plan,"Land Adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School, Mountnessing" is identified as the only suitable residential site at Mountnessing (Ref G093). Therefore, should, a higher level of housing be adopted by BBC, a logical spatial strategy would include the allocation of the most sustainable residential sites at each of the Larger Villages.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 941
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Countryside Properties
Agent: Andrew Martin Planning Ltd
Our assessment of landscape sensitivity and potential for change to the Green Belt reveals that land at West Horndon is capable of accommodating significant growth to meet the Council's housing needs. In the absence of a proper SA, land adjoining the existing settlement has not been fully assessed. Sites have emerged as preferred options without the benefit of full assessment under the guidelines of the EU Directive and Regulations for undertaking SA. Similarly this inadequate assessment has failed to properly test the alternatives.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 957
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Barwood Land and Estates Ltd
Agent: Chilmark Consulting Limited
Policy CP10 seeks to restrict Green Belt review and release those sites identified by the Council as necessary to deliver the level of housing identified in the draft Local Plan. The level of housing proposed in the draft Local Plan does not meet the full objectively assessed housing needs of the Borough. It is unclear whether the necessary analysis required to underpin policy CP10 and therefore support a capacity constrained development approach to housing and economic growth has been undertaken. This is compounded by the lack of evidence to show how Brentwood has complied with Duty to Co-operate.
See Attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 968
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Natural England
This policy is broadly supported.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1012
Received: 20/09/2013
Respondent: Development Securities PLC
Agent: RPS Planning & Development
The site at Mountnessing Roundabout (107) should be deleted from Green Belt.
The most appropriate time to review Green belt boundaries is during preparation of a Local Plan (NPPF). The site has a live consent for a substantial amount of built floorspace, plus is proposed to be allocated in the Plan for employment development. Consequently, there is a strong prospect that a sizeable development will come forward on the site, in which case the site will not remain "permanently open". In light of the sites history and planned allocation there in no purpose in retaining the sites Green belt status.
See attached
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1023
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Robin Kennedy
The village envelope of Doddinghurst and other villages has been extended three or four times since I moved to the area in 1986, the policies map includes within the village the only small parts that keep the clusters of linear development possibly 20-30 minutes walk from its original envelope apart. If this plan is adopted much of this and other land within gardens that exist will be available for development, by creeping urbanization. The doctor's surgery adjacent to my bungalow and other infill sites are prime examples. In my view the current Green Belt enclosure needs to remain the same.
See attached letter
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1048
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Karen Latimer
Support intention to protect Green Belt land surrounding Blackmore Village and not allocate sites for development on Green Belt here.
Offer of 100% affordable housing would not be sufficient to overcome Green Belt very special circumstances and impact on rural environment etc.
I am a resident in Blackmore and would like to thank you for your presentation on Thursday 19th September, at the LDP consultation meeting. The information was useful and interesting giving some idea of the future plans for our borough, as there were no specific plans for the Parish included within the draft i feel it is difficult to communicate an accurate comment, however i hope this helps to relay opinion. When you refer to public opinion for consideration and review of the plan, please take very seriously the need to protect the Green Belt land from development which we have within the Parish of Hook End, Blackmore and Wyatts Green. Discussions have previously taken place and 100% affordable home building on Green Belt land was thought to be unsuitable for the rural environment and community.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1068
Received: 20/08/2013
Respondent: Mr. and Mr G. and S. Chislett
Number of people: 2
I think the proposed development of Metropolitan Green Belt Land is extremely ill-advised as this will set a dangerous precedent, if this is allowed to happen it will not be long before we will be merged with Thurrock and Greater London, do we really want this, do we really need this?
Letter
As a resident of West Horndon we are rather alarmed to learn of the proposals put forward by Brentwood Council. While we are fully aware that people have to live somewhere, and there does appear to be scope for development to the area West of Thorndon Avenue as depicted in your 'Site Allocation Maps' denoted by 'Area 037'. But I cannot see the justification for 1500 new houses in our small village, increasing the population by somewhere in the region of 3000 to 4000 or more.
What shops will they use, when all we have got is one News Agent, a small general store, two hair dressers, a little cake shop, a fireplace shop and last of all but not least a 'Massage Parlour'.
If the proposal is to build more shops and possibly a new school, where will all of these units be sited? What about the Doctors Surgery, we think we have the very best surgery in the Brentwood area, the existing surgery will be too small to cater for the proposed increase.
Also what will happen to our very dismal transport links, bus service to/from Brentwood/Lakeside/ Basildon, will all these be improved to help keep motorists out of their cars. Train service can also be improved.
The other strategic allocation sites 020 and 021, the two Industrial Estates, several matters arise here:-
1. The cost to demolish and prepare the site.
2. The number of personnel working there will lose their jobs, some from West Horndon. What will happen to them?
3. The loss of Business Rates when the units are gone.
4. Road access and egress to the new sites
5. Junction Station Road and A128 a roundabout will DEFINETLY be required, it's bad enough now.
I sincerely hope the criteria mentioned above will be given the utmost consideration so that we don't finally end up with a system that has more against it than for it.
Email
Sir,
With reference to the above proposal, I must stress my concern regarding the number of properties proposed to be built. Whilst I realise that some development will take place, I do not think it is sustainable to build the number of properties proposed.
There are a number of points I would like to put forward as follows :-
1. If the Industrial site is to be demolished for the new houses, what is going to happen to the people that currently work there, some of them from West Horndon, they probably will not be able to relocate.
2. How does the Council plan to obtain the shortfall in rates from the Industrial Site when it is gone, our rates will inevitably need to increase to make up the deficit.
3. What about the flooding risk, I sincerely hope the increased flooding risk will be fully and expertly investigated, and not just pushed aside as 'a wait and see what happens scenario', as it will then be too late. The village has been flooded several times in the past, most recently in 2012, this is a major concern, and needs to be urgently addressed, and not forgotten.
4. When the Industrial Site has gone the only thing in our favour is the reduced number of lorries speeding through the village, and the general congestion they have caused in the past.
5. We will instead have an increased number of private cars going through the village, and the intersection of Station Road and the A128 is an absolute nightmare, in the past I personally have say there for up to five or more minutes waiting for a break in the traffic when turning right to go towards Orsett. I wrote to Brentwood Council and Essex County Council many years ago about this problem, requesting a roundabout to be installed, I was told that a roundabout could not be installed because the A128 was a major A road, what nonsense was that I replied, there a number of roundabouts on the A1 and many other A roads, now there is even one at the intersection of A128 and Middleton Hall Lane. So I feel a roundabout will DEFINITELY be needed at Station Road and the A128 to avoid further accidents. Roads in the village will also need to be upgraded. As well as the pavements, these are atrocious.
6. What about our transport links, the local bus service is virtually non existent, even at present if there were more buses people would make full use of them and not use there cars, the railway service will be pushed to the limit and will be overcrowded, they are already overcrowded and with the new residents working in London and elsewhere using the railway, the situation will be worse, these most certainly will need to be improved.
7. Facilities in the village will also need to be improved, we will need better medical and educational facilities and also shops, these will not be sustainable if there is no improvement.
8. I think the proposed development of Metropolitan Green Belt Land is extremely ill-advised as this will set a dangerous precedent, if this is allowed to happen it will not be long before we will be merged with Thurrock and Greater London, do we really want this, do we really need this?
I sincerely hope the Council will take note of all the above notes and also the notes submitted by other residents and fully think out all the proposals before going ahead like a bull in a china shop and proceed Willy Nilly with what they plan irrespective of the thoughts and well being of others.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1069
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Mrs Tracey Sleet
Please register my objection to any proposed building on any land, as set out the 2005 current Brentwood Local Plan, that is designated as Greenbelt.
Should the draft Local Plan be approved southern Brentwood will lose a part of the greenbelt situated directly between London and Brentwood.
Please register my objection to any proposed building on any land, as set out the 2005 current Brentwood Local Plan, that is designated as Greenbelt.
Should the draft Local Plan be approved southern Brentwood will lose a part of the greenbelt situated directly between London and Brentwood.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1092
Received: 15/07/2013
Respondent: Mr. Norman Rose
Suggestion to alter the Green Belt boundary, land at Alexander Lane.
The above (see attached) is a copy of a suggestion to alter the Green Belt boundary that I sent you years ago without a reply.
Three quarters of Alexander Lane is residential both sides the other quarter is the Shenfield School playing fields, Alexander House and the Mount Pleasant Cottages. That quarter is green and there is little danger of the playing field being sold for building as much of the other playing field opposite the Rose Inn has now been built on and the larger playing field will always be needed.
What is the difference between a Green Belt area and a green field area? It all looks the same.
I refer you to my letter of November 2012 and your reply when you stated that the situation might change this summer.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1101
Received: 04/10/2013
Respondent: Mr. & Mrs. Windsor
Number of people: 2
Agent: SJK Planning
Proposed minor alteration to Green Belt boundary at Green Keepers cottage, Thorndon Gate, Ingrave.
There is no reason why Green Keepers Cottage should be excluded from what has been determined as the built-up area of Ingrave. The house fronts onto Thorndon Gate and logically forms part of the residential area of the settlement, quite distinct from the parkland to the west and north of the property.
This letter is written in support of a representation in respect of a proposed minor alteration to the Green Belt Boundary. A block plan is provided to show the proposed change.
Green Keepers Cottage is a modestly sized two storey 4 bedroom house. It is situated within the small settlement of Ingrave, 1km south-east of Brentwood. It backs onto the houses in The Meadows and is close to Brentwood Road (A128), the main road through Ingrave. To the west and north is Thorndon Country Park, a public area managed by Essex County Council.
The site forms part of the built up area of settlement of Ingrave, at the end of a row of properties alongside Thorndon Gate. The Green Belt boundary does not include the house within the settlement limits.
It is recognised that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts.
Paragraph 83 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.
Our case for the minor alteration in this instance is that there is no reason why Green Keepers Cottage should be excluded from what has been determined as the built-up area of Ingrave. The house fronts onto Thorndon Gate and logically forms part of the residential area of the settlement, quite distinct from the parkland to the west and north of the property.
Changing the boundary as suggested would exclude a very small area from the Green Belt, extending to 470 square meters, within which sits Green Keepers Cottage, a two storey detached house. The boundary with Thorndon Park is clearly defined by the side boundary fence to the property and would form a long term defensible Green Belt boundary.
The case is not being made on the grounds that there is potential for further development, but simply that there appears to an anomaly that has excluded Green Keepers Cottage. It is the furthest extent of development along Thorndon Gate, but this is no reason to exclude it from the settlement.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1108
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Childerditch Properties
Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP
The purpose of these representations is to seek the allocation of the Range North for General Employment. Given that the site is designated GB, it will be necessary to demonstrate that the release of that site would not prejudice the purposes of GB and it would be in accordance with NPPF. We consider there is insufficient land being allocated to accommodate the level and nature of development required and that exceptional circumstances exist in Brentwood for additional employment land which cannot be located entirely within he proposed Brentwood Enterprise Park as allocated.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1283
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: JB Planning Associates Ltd.
The Council is placing a significant policy priority in favour of protecting the Green Belt which we believe is unnecessarily restrictive and fails to recognise the potential for some Green Belt sites to deliver sustainable development. We acknowledge the political sensitivity of the Green Belt, however in a borough where 80% is designated as Green Belt, we struggle to believe the few sites identified for release by the Borough are the only suitable sites. The Council should therefore take the form of a full Green Belt review. What is clear is that Brentwood will not meet its housing needs over the
plan period unless additional land is identified to meet the need for increased delivery, which will include assessing the potential for additional Green Belt release. Releasing appropriate Green Belt sites should not automatically be assumed to be an unsustainable and unfavourable outcome.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1319
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Countryside Properties
Agent: Colliers International
We object to making only minor amendments to the Green Belt. In order to meet the future needs of the Borough there is an identified need to review and amend the Green Belt boundaries in order to accommodate growth in a plan led way. The only feasible Alternative Approach, not currently identified as an approach within the Plan, is to release land where it is no longer serving Green Belt purposes (paragraph 80,NPPF). Our clients land at Doddinghurst Road (either side of A12) is located adjacent to the settlement boundary of Brentwood and allows for a natural defenceable Gb boundary.
See Attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1328
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Laindon Holdings Ltd
Agent: Town Planning Services
We consider that in accordance with Policy S1 (which acknowledges that it is appropriate to reuse suitable developed sites in the Green Belt), the extent of the Green Belt should be amended. Previously developed sites that are appropriate for redevelopment should be removed from the Green Belt. We consider land at Brook Street and Wigley Bush Lane, Brentwood is an appropriate site for redevelopment and should be excluded. The site currently accommodates a car showroom and car park. Together with the adjacent developments, it forms part of a ribbon of established commercial development along Brook Street.
See Attached