3 Essex County Fire Brigade HQ, Rayleigh Road, Brentwood (005) - (101 dwellings)

Showing comments and forms 1 to 4 of 4

Object

Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation

Representation ID: 847

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Mr David Read

Representation Summary:

Over dense development for area, nothing in this area of this density, this will overwhelm the surrounding houses. A totally unacceptable development on this area.

Full text:

Over dense development for area, nothing in this area of this density, this will overwhelm the surrounding houses. A totally unacceptable development on this area.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation

Representation ID: 1470

Received: 14/09/2013

Respondent: Mr Ivan Armstrong

Representation Summary:

1. We support the principle of development on the site but not the quantity of dwellings envisaged.
2. We do not believe flats are appropriate on the site.
3. If flats were approved for the site we think that nothing higher than first floor development is appropriate.
4. We trust that there would be no attempt to remove any of the trees or the raised land.
5. We are concerned about the traffic flows if anything like 100 dwellings were on the site.
6. The completion of Shenfield as the eastern end of Crossrail would increase traffic on Rayleigh Rd.

Full text:

I wish to provide feedback on the plan as it relates to the Essex County Fire Headquarters on Rayleigh Rd.

1. We support the principle of development on the site but not the quantity of dwellings envisaged. No detailed assumptions are provided to show how the estimate of 100 dwellings is arrived at. We can only assume that flats rather than semi or detached houses as the site would not provide anything like 100 houses.

2. We do not believe flats are appropriate on the site. Virtually all of the surrounding area consists of semi - detached or detached houses and any development should be consistent with the character of housing in the area.

3. If flats were approved for the site we think that nothing higher than ground and first floor development is appropriate .Anything higher would spoil the character of the area and give any higher floors sight in to existing properties. Parking for 100 vehicles would further restrict the build space.

4. The plan included in the consultation shows shading to the boundaries of the site. However three sides of the site have many trees with TPO's and two sides of the site have raised land where the trees are sited. We trust that there would be no attempt to remove any of the trees or the raised land. Doing the latter might also risk the security of the boundaries of existing properties in The Spinney which are on the raised level . It would be helpful to know whether these issues have been taken into account in calculating the available land for development and the number of dwellings.

5. We are concerned about the traffic flows if anything like 100 dwellings were on the site. First, widening the access onto and from Rayleigh Rd is constrained by the TPO's and the existing entry might be insufficient for the number of cars involved plus delivery lorries. Secondly Rayleigh Rd is already very busy. Having 100 or more vehicles trying to enter the road at busy times would cause delays and potential accidents particularly if traffic is turning right out of or into the site. There are traffic lights on the road and a mini roundabout into Hanging Hill Lane close to the site which could not cope with this number of vehicles at busy times.The traffic lights are part of a four way set including The Spinney and the Bishops Hall estate. The mini roundabout provides access to Hanging Hill Lane which is already very busy at school time and now has the Tesco store increasing traffic problems.

6. The completion of Shenfield as the eastern end of Crossrail would already be increasing traffic volume on Rayleigh Rd . The proposed development would increase further the congestion on the road and the risk to pedestrians.

Attachments:

Object

Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation

Representation ID: 1561

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: - Nicholas Walker

Representation Summary:

Comment 2 - The inclusion of this site is unacceptable and I object strongly to its inclusion. There has been a continual expansion in the number of dwellings in the Brentwood district through "fill-in" and new development amounting to a very significant number. In all that time, there has been no improvement to the road system at all so traffic congestion is a constant problem. The concentration of such a large increase in the number of dwellings proposed for this allocation is unacceptable without any improvement in the road network.

Full text:

please see atttached documents

Attachments:

Comment

Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation

Representation ID: 3349

Received: 26/09/2013

Respondent: Anglian Water

Representation Summary:

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

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

Comments on surface water disposal measures and inclusion of SUDS.

Full text:

See attached

Attachments: