See attached document

DEvelopment in Ingrave not appropriate due to poor vehicular access to proposed areas; HGVs would damage local Historic buildings and the proposal in Ingrave would destroy the views that probably inspired Vaughan Williams when he lived in the village about 100 years ago. Brentwood is proud if its association with the great composer and should do everything possible to preserve his environment.

I agree with (C) A127 Corridor, have reservations on (B) A12 Corridor, because of the limited main arterial routes and junctions to enter and exit Brentwood Town centre and the negative impact on surrounding road networks and countryside. I disagree and object to the broad area of (A) North of the Borough as the Villages in this are and the surrounding countryside are what give the area it's character, reputation, value and quality of enivronment. If you extend villages, they become towns and people choose to live in villages because they don't want to live in a town! The villages of Navestock, Kelvedon Hatch, Doddinghurst, Stondon Massey, Hook End, Blackmore and Wyatts Green are distinct in charceter and separated by countryside, if you start to 'fill in' the countryside between these villages you lose the distinction, uniqueness and character and you start to lose the villages and potentially the 'local' people that live there. The local infrastructure of the villages cannot sustain large growth, there are not enough school,places, there are not enough medical facilities, the village centres retail areas are already overcrowded at peak times and there is not enough public transport, the surrounding rounds are not suitable for large buses now, so an increase would mean expensive adjustments to the road and the roads are poorly maintained now, so an increase in vehicles would only make this worse unless there was a huge investment.There would also be a massive impact on all the local wildlife.

Objection based on the lack of facilities and transport links in these areas. Further growth in the villages could not be easily supported under the current village structures. Unless the council is will to fund this as well - then these options are not viable financially or logically.

Seems as good a definition as others.

I agree

I object to this proposal as part of the development area will be on Chelmsford Road - which is extremely busy in the mornings and afternoons (school times and rush hour), and when there is a problem on the A12 it has to take the traffic from there as well! There are quite a few schools nearby and increased traffic means more jams, pollution, and an even more dangerous road!

Below, on this form one of the questions is 'Do you wish to be notified WHEN DOCUMENT IS ADOPTED - I thought this should have said IF!

I do not agree with the part relating to Shenfield and Brentwood centres, as there is too much congestion, pollution and gridlock already. A new entrance to the A12 from North Brentwood would be useful and prevent the present blockages. I agree that West Horndon would benefit from these proposals.

I do not agree with growth along the only main road through the middle of Shenfield and Brentwood - this would be madness! We do not need to build on green belt - build flats not houses!

Again, shouldn't the question below be 'if the document is adopted'?

Yes, I agree - they are quite distinct.

I agree with the above.

I support but I cannot see why you have to subdivide the total area into sub-parts.
How does this help in the overall planning considerations? Are you saying that you will be treating each of the proposed three areas independently?

Seems as good a subdivision as any others .
Because of the way you have presented the document I answered this question originally before I had seen there was further information following the question. Bad design in my opinion which should have been ironed out before this document was released to the public.

Although each area is very large, there is a consistency in current development within the regions, although the area south of Brentwood is still semi-rural

see attached

Whilst I broadly agree with the areas specified there is a danger of sprawl if the existing urban areas are simply extended. For example Pilgrims Hatch could be absorbed into the town and lose its identity if the strips of land next to the A12 are developed. From Hatch Road towards Doddinghurst has more of the character of area A than the A12 corridor.

see attached

I think that Mountnessing and Ingatestone should be included in the North of the Borough area as they are similar to some other villages in the vicinity

I agree that there needs to be some development in all 3 areas although I believe development in Area A (North of the borough) should be kept to a minimum. These villages, as stated, do not have sufficient facilities/transport links/school places to accommodate population increase. I also believe that the vast majority of people living in these locations would prefer them to remain as 'villages'. Too much growth would have a negative effect on village community life.

The Borough split appears logical - the A12 corridor, and the A127 corridor

The A12 corridor appears, in my opinion, to be the most advantageous for development. This is mainly because it is near to the Crossrail Project, which has extra capacity to accommodate transport growth for an increase in community numbers.

I do agree that options need to be considered. Brown field sites especially throughout the borough. I strongly object to development on green belt land. A land parcel as large and important as Creasey's farm would be disastrous if it we're build upon. Education, infrastructure and wildlife would not cope with the change.

Dear Sir or Madam
Brentwood Strategic Growth Options Consultation (January 2015)
Thank you for your letter dated 5 January consulting English Heritage on the
above document. We would like to make the following comments
Q1: Do you agree with the three broad areas for the purposes of
considering approaches to growth?
We do not have a strong view on the division of the borough into three broad
areas, which we recognise is to help consider growth options. As paragraph
2.13 notes, each of the areas should not be considered in isolation. In the
case of the historic environment, specific heritage assets might be shared
between more than one area (e.g. Thorndon Hall Registered Park and
Garden), and so could be impacted on by growth proposals in each area.
Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised for each of these three areas?
We broadly agree with the issues raised for each area in paragraphs 2.14 to
2.19. The historic environment forms an important part of the issues and
options for each area in terms of where to potentially locate new development.
This includes designated heritage assets but also non-designated assets such
as sites of archaeological interest. We would expect proper assessment of the
historic environment and potential impacts when making decisions about
where to locate development.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular
sites?
Due to time and resource constraints we have not been able to assess every
site in great detail. Our comments on the sites have been based mainly on
desk-top analysis, and we have not been able to judge the potential impacts
more accurately on the ground. Even with the strategic sites, we have only
been able to carry out rapid site visits in limited cases and have not had the
opportunity to ascertain precise impacts. We have focussed on those sites
with the potential for the greatest historic environment impact. This does not mean there are no issues with any other site and we reserve the right to
comment further on any site as and when proposals develop.
Please note that we have not considered areas of archaeological interest
beyond scheduled monuments in most cases, nor have we looked at historic
landscape issues beyond registered historic parks & gardens. However,
wider archaeological and landscape impacts are important considerations and
need to be factored into site assessment. The possible cumulative impact of
a number of site allocations in one location could cause significant harm to the
historic environment. Advice from conservation and archaeological staff at
borough and county levels should be sought, along with consultation of the
County Historic Environment Record (HER) for specific heritage assets.
In terms of site assessments in relation to heritage assets, care should be
taken to avoid merely limiting assessment of impact on a heritage asset to its
distance from, or intervisibility with, a potential site. Site allocations which
include a heritage asset (for example a site within a Conservation Area) may
offer opportunities for enhancement and tackling heritage at risk, while
conversely, an allocation at a considerable distance away from a heritage
asset may cause harm to its significance, rendering the site unsuitable.
The following broad steps might be of assistance in terms of assessing sites:
* Identify the heritage assets on or within the vicinity of the potential site
allocation at an appropriate scale
* Assess the contribution of the site to the significance of heritage assets
on or within its vicinity
* Identify the potential impacts of development upon the significance of
heritage asset
* Consider how any harm might be removed or reduced, including
reasonable alternatives sites * Consider how any enhancements could be achieved and maximised
* Consider and set out the public benefits where harm cannot be
removed or reduced
Q4: Which of the sites along the A127 Corridor is the best location for
growth?
The document notes the potential for larger growth opportunities in the A127
corridor, with a residential-led mixed used allocation at West Horndon or a
cross boundary development at Dunton (English Heritage has responded
separately to the Dunton Garden Suburb consultation). The consultation
suggests that development would only occur at either West Horndon or
Dunton, but in the event that both are pursued, we would have reservations
about the cumulative impact and extent of urbanisation along the A127
corridor, which could harm various heritage assets. We would expect in such
a scenario for an adequate buffer between West Horndon and Dunton and
important heritage assets.
Within West Horndon site 038B includes the southern limits of the Thorndon
Hall Registered Park and Garden (Grade II* listed) and Thorndon Park
Conservation Area. This southerly projection is separated from the main Park
and Garden and conservation area by the A127, but the issue of severance must have been considered at the time of designation (in 1987 and 1993
respectively). Housing development on the designated area would result in
harm to its character and appearance, and development abutting its
boundaries might also result in a degree of harm.
On site 162 at Little Warley there is a proposal for an elderly care facility. This
site abuts Little Warely Hall, which dates from the early 16th century and is
listed at Grade II*, together with the Church of St Peter, which dates from the
15th and 17th centuries and is listed at Grade I. Development of an elderly
care facility on this site is likely to adversely impact on the setting of both
these highly graded heritage assets. Sites 058A and 058B on the east side of
Little Warely Hall Lane are also in close proximity to these assets, but well
designed and appropriately scaled housing may be less harmful compared to
the current recycling and HGV operations on site 058A.
Q5: Should the A12 Corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites on
the edge of urban areas?
The report notes that brownfield land within the urban areas might be
efficiently developed in order to minimise pressure on Green Belt releases.
English Heritage broadly agrees with this approach, though we note that a
number of brownfield sites are in close proximity to designated heritage
assets and the design of any developments would need to have special
regard to the setting of these assets.
In terms of releasing sites on the edge of urban areas, this again depends on
the exact location in terms of impact on the historic environment. Very
significant areas of green belt land to the east and southeast of Hutton/east of
Ingrave and Herongate is included in the report and much of this land has
implications for a large number of heritage assets. The Sustainability
Appraisal seems to underplay the impact of this location on the historic
environment, ranking it third out of five potential options for strategic growth.
We would argue that it ranks lower than that. On the extreme eastern edge of Hutton is the Hutton village conservation
area. This conservation area has an open rural setting apart from where it
abuts existing housing on the northern half of its western boundary, and
includes Hutton Hall (Grade II* listed) and the 14th century Church of All Saints
(Grade II* listed) plus a number of other buildings listed at Grade II. The
conservation area also includes areas of open land that make a positive
contribution to its character and appearance. Development sites 033, 211
and 219 all lie within the conservation area and English Heritage cannot see
how they could come forward for development without resulting in significant
harm to the character or appearance of the conservation area, as well as
adversely impacting on the setting of some of listed buildings. Sites 008,
008B and 008C are all likely to adversely impact on wider setting of the
conservation area and the more immediate setting of Hutton House, along
with its walled garden and stables (all listed at Grade II). Site 028C is a large
site that abuts the south east and southwest boundaries of the conservation
area, where development is likely to result in harm to the rural character and
appearance of the conservation area and would also have the potential to
adversely impact on the setting of the Church of All Saints and Hutton Hall (both Grade II* listed). The western boundary of Site 028C also abuts the
boundary of Heatleys, a 16th century Grade II house, and development in this
area would have implications for the setting of this house.
Sites 028A and 028B abut the southeast built edge of Hutton. Development
in this area would have implications for the setting of a number of listed
buildings including Hare Hall (Grade II listed) Heatleys (Grade II) listed and
Kennel House (Grade II listed). It may also have implications for the wider
setting of the Thorndon Park Conservation Area and Thorndon Hall
Registered Park and Garden (Grade II*), as well as longer views out from
Thorndon Hall (Grade I listed).
Site 192 is another large site which adjoins the south of site 028C and is
located to the east of Ingrave and Herongate. This site completely enclosed a
scheduled moated site at Heron Hall, together with the 17th century Grade II
listed Hall and stables and the Grade II* listed granary. This complex of
heritage assets currently enjoys a remote rural setting, and historically the
medieval house sited within the moat would have commanded all this
surrounding land. Development of the land around these heritage assets
would therefore result in significant change to their setting and harm to their
significance.
Site 212 is located to the southwest of the Great Warley conservation area
and, while this site is unlikely to have an impact on the conservation area, it
has the potential to adversely impact on the setting of the Thatched Cottage
and The Squirrels (both dating from the 19th century and listed at Grade II).
This site currently comprises Coombe Wood, which would appear to be of
some landscape and ecological value. Northwest of Great Warley is site 167.
Again this site is sufficiently remote from the conservation area and
Registered Park and Garden, but abuts the northern boundary of Hill Cottage
(Grade II listed) and is in relatively close proximity to Great Ropers, an 18th
century house listed at Grade II*.
Site 218 on the edge of Shenfield lies close to a cluster of listed buildings at
Shenfield Hall, including the Grade II hall and Grade II* Church of St Mary.
There should be assessment of potential impacts. Q6: In the North of the Borough, is it preferable to release greenfield or
brownfield sites?
As noted in the document, the North of the Borough is made up of a collection
of villages set amidst attractive landscape (although it is wrong to simply
consider the landscape as 'natural', as it will contain many historic elements).
In terms of specific sites:
Blackmore
The village includes a designated conservation area that contains a number of
listed buildings forming this historic core of the settlement and some open
land of historic interest that also makes a positive contribution to the character
and appearance of the conservation area. Site 052 is located in the conservation area on land to the rear of Little
Jericho. Little Jericho is a grade II listed house dating from c1600 and the
vacant barn/farm buildings to its rear may be curtilage listed. They may also
make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the
conservation area. Whilst a scheme for the careful adaptation of the farm
buildings into residential use may be acceptable, their demolition and
wholesale redevelopment of the site could well result in harm to the historic
environment.
Site 202 is located immediately adjacent to the western boundary of the
conservation area and the loss of open rural views out of the conservation
area (especially from the path that defines this boundary of the conservation
area) is likely to be harmful to the character and appearance of the
conservation area. Site 199 is to the northeast of the conservation area and
would be less likely to impact on its setting, especially if the southern edge of
the development was given a soft and green boundary.
Sites 076 and 077 are both further away from the conservation area, but both
have Grade II listed buildings in close proximity, and development could
adversely impact on the setting of these listed buildings. It might be possible
to bring forward development on both sites that successfully addresses the
issue of setting for these listed building, but it would be necessary to first
understand how setting contributes to their significance.
Hook End
While there is not conservation area in Hook End, there are a number of
Grade II listed buildings that might be affected by development proposals. A
number of these listed buildings are farmhouses that would historically have
been linked to the adjacent open farmland. Loss of this open farmland could
therefore impact on their signficance. In particular site 174 is immediately to
the west of a collection of three Grade II buildings comprising Hook End
Poultry Farmhouse, brewhouse and barn, while Site 183 is to the south west
of Barfield Farmhouse and south east of Deal Tree Farmhouse. Other sites
that may have implications for the setting of designated heritage assets
include 209 (impacting on the Soap House, Grade II), 056A & 056B
(impacting on The Cottage, Grade II) and 196 (impacting on a cluster of
Grade II listed assets comprising a pump, cartlodge, granary and Wyatts
Farmhouse). Thoby Priory
Site 018 incorporates the ruins of Thoby Priory, which is a Scheduled
Monument and listed Grade II. The priory ruins are also on the English
Heritage 'at risk' list. The priory would have been sited in a remote location
suitably for the contemplative life, but that setting has been compromised in
recent years. English Heritage accepts that a development with housing
located to the west and north of the designated assets, whilst retaining an
open aspect to the south and east, could be acceptable, especially if it also
provided for the improved management of the heritage assets.
Kelvedon Hatch A number of possible sites are identified around the periphery of Kelvedon
Hatch. Those on the east side of the settlement have minimal implications for
the historic environment. There are a number of designated heritage assets
(both listed and scheduled) on the west side of the settlement, but most of
these are to the west of A128 and are therefore likely to be adequately
buffered from developments on sites 217 and 194, which are located on the
east side of the A road. There is a smaller site at 074 which may have
implications for the setting of St Nicholas's Church (Grade II). This church is
currently sited on the edge of the settlement and enclosing its open aspect to
the south might result in a degree of harm.
Q7: Do you agree that the most sustainable approach to employment
need is to allocation new sites close to the strategic highway network?
The map on page 22 of the document identifies a number of potential
employment sites. These sites are generally located in close proximity to
existing transport corridors and/or adjacent to current employment sites, and
the majority will have little adverse impact on designated heritage assets. The
exceptions are sites 109 and 187, which are adjacent to East Hordon Hall
(16th and 18th century and Grade II listed). While the setting of the Hall has
already been compromised by the A127 (which passes immediately to the
north) and the existing employment land to the east of the Hall, further
employment buildings in close proximity would exacerbate the existing harm.
Q8: Do you agree that a town centre first approach should be taken to
retail development?
We broadly agree with this approach as it is should help to maintain the vitality
of town centres which in turn can benefit heritage assets within these
locations. It will depend on specific proposals and their impact, but there are
opportunities in places like Brentwood Town Centre to secure enhancements.
In terms of retail site options for Brentwood Town Centre, our 2013 comments
have highlighted specific heritage assets for some of the sites shown in this
consultation. In many respects, Site 100 (Baytree Centre) is the most
important in terms of opportunities to enhance the historic environment, given
its access off the High Street from within the conservation area, and the
proximity of several listed buildings plus a scheduled monument (the chapel).
We would welcome further discussions regarding this site.
Q9: No comments
Q10: Landscape value
Section 5 of this consultation puts heritage into a separate category detached
from other environmental considerations, rather than include it as part of the
overall environmental picture. Figure 15 should include designated heritage
assets, particularly conservation areas, scheduled monuments and registered
parks and gardens. We note the intention to produce further assessment of
landscape capacity surrounding urban areas in paragraph 5.6. We strongly
recommend that this assessment includes the historic environment as a key
component of landscape capacity. Our comments on specific sites reveal the
extent of heritage assets surrounding the urban areas, and this should be
considered in any decisions on suitable sites. The Local Plan evidence base does not appear to contain any specific references to the historic environment,
and we recommend this is addressed.
Q11: No comments
Q12: Infrastructure Issues
The provision of new or improved infrastructure such as transport can have
implications for the historic environment in terms of impact on specific heritage
assets. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan and related work should consider
such issues. In addition, the historic environment can form part of different
types of infrastructure, from community facilities to historic transport
structures. It also contributes to green infrastructure, which is more than just
the natural environment. Publicly accessible parks and gardens,
archaeological sites and spaces within conservation areas and listed buildings
can all form part of existing and proposed green infrastructure networks, with
opportunities to conserve and enhance such elements.
Q13: No comments
We hope that the above comments are of assistance. If you have any queries
or would like to discuss specific points, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Other areas, more politically unsuitable have not been considered, Brentwood Council are only exploring areas where there would be less people to object which is unfair.

The division into North, A12 and A127 is too simplistic and will encourage a NIMBY response with the majority of the Brentwood population in the A12 corridor advocating a preference for development in the much smaller A127 area away from the A12 corridor. It is inappropriate that the division between the A127 corridor and the A12 corridor has been placed much nearer to the A127 than the A12. Herongate and Ingrave for example should be included in the A127 corridor, not the A12 corridor since the A127 is more accessible to them.

The division into North, A12 and A127 is too simplistic and will encourage a NIMBY response
with the majority of the Brentwood population in the A12 corridor advocating a preference for
development in the much smaller A127 area away from the A12 corridor. It is inappropriate that the
division between the A127 corridor and the A12 corridor has been placed much nearer to the A127
than the A12. Herongate and Ingrave for example should be included in the A127 corridor, not the
A12 corridor since the A127 is more accessible to them.

I feel that the northern growth area is wrong - this is a relatively green and pleasant area that greatly enhances the quality of life for Brentwood residents. Areas B and C would be far more suitable development areas.

The areas outlined for growth are too expansive.
Of the three areas outlined the only one that makes any logical sense is are C near the A127 corridor.

It is disingenuous to claim Ingrave and Herongate areas are part of the A12 corridor. Residents in these locations will, on the whole, use the A127, either directly at the A128 junction, or indirectly through Warley/Childerditch, via gps 51.582525, 0.339024. This means the population for these areas should be shown in the A127 corridor figures, and the strain on infrastructure in that area.

see attached