Object

Representation ID: 29494

Received: 03/11/2021

Respondent: Mr Richard Thwaite

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

If 'great weight will given to the preservation of a designated heritage asset and its setting' then how can building on sites R25 and R26 be allowed, as they will further increase the flood risk to the grade I listed church in the conservation area that is less than 500 m away from those sites.

Support

Representation ID: 29502

Received: 04/11/2021

Respondent: Essex County Council

4. Consistent with National Policy

The inclusion of the additional wording in paragraph 6.125 ensures the full range of non-designated heritage assets are identified and considered.

This modification addresses ECC’s Reg.19 Rep 22398 and the position in the Statement of Common Ground (F17D) between BBC and ECC.

Support

Representation ID: 29719

Received: 10/11/2021

Respondent: Gita Mackintosh

Agree due diligence should be taken re heritage sites. Once our environment is altered it will be gone for good and we need to retain heritage as this is what is so attractive to Brentwood and for those who live here.

Object

Representation ID: 29860

Received: 25/11/2021

Respondent: Mrs Edna Williams

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Non designated Heritage Assets..can include lanes.. a strong requirement for their retention. Redrose Lane has a history of being used during the plague of the 1300’s and is of historic significance will be completely changed with the development of R25 and R26.

Object

Representation ID: 30055

Received: 29/11/2021

Respondent: CEG Land Promotions Limited

Agent: Lichfields

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

The proposed wording in relation to non-designated heritage assets is not consistent with Paragraph 203 of the NPPF. Currently, the wording directly weighs harm/loss versus public benefit which goes beyond the policy test for non-designated heritage assets and has not been justified.