Comment

Representation ID: 12286

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Miss Kirsty Wilson

Brownfield sites should be considered above Greenfield where appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 12313

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Steven Morris

Suitable brownfield sites should always be considered above greenfield sites. Sometimes the release of Green Belt land around villages may provide the opportunity to grow sustainably. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted, and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all Green Belt land around West Horndon village would not create this impact for the existing community.
There may be some instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. E.g. In West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Comment

Representation ID: 12340

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Nicola Giles

Suitable brownfield sites should always be considered above greenfield sites. Sometimes the release of Green Belt land around villages may provide the opportunity to grow sustainably. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted, and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all Green Belt land around West Horndon village would not create this impact for the existing community.
There may be some instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. E.g. In West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Comment

Representation ID: 12361

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr. Stuart Giles

Suitable brownfield sites should always be considered above greenfield sites. Sometimes the release of Green Belt land around villages may provide the opportunity to grow sustainably. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted, and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all Green Belt land around West Horndon village would not create this impact for the existing community.
There may be some instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. E.g. In West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Comment

Representation ID: 12384

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Michelle Morris

Suitable brownfield sites should always be considered above greenfield sites. Sometimes the release of Green Belt land around villages may provide the opportunity to grow sustainably. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted, and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all Green Belt land around West Horndon village would not create this impact for the existing community.
There may be some instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. E.g. In West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Comment

Representation ID: 12396

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Roger Powell

Whichever has the least impact on residents and has the better access for traffic.

Comment

Representation ID: 12422

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: S & J Padfield and Partners

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Re-use of brownfield sites is strongly supported and reinforced by NPPF paragraph 111 which states that "Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value." Brentwood Enterprise Park [site ref 101A] is a site that although currently within the Green Belt has been subject to significant previous development and can be developed for employment use without significant or wider adverse impact on the landscape or Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12425

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Luxon

There is no "local need" to ruin a small village by adding and expanding housing. Green Belt land should be left well alone as destroying it would essentially destroy the whole village feel.

Comment

Representation ID: 12452

Received: 18/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs. Harlow

Brownfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 12468

Received: 18/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Martin

Brownfield.

Comment

Representation ID: 12477

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mr Scott Cooper

Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above greenfield sites.
Greenfield should not be built on, it is to protect areas from urban sprawl. Releasing Green Belt land around West Horndon would not create a positive or balanced impact to the existing community.

Comment

Representation ID: 12497

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Mr R Thomas

Greenfield sites within the Green Belt must not be developed. There will always be pressure for development and it is easy for the green belt to be whittled away but once it is gone it will not be replaced. Every effort should be taken to maximise the use of brownfield sites.

Comment

Representation ID: 12525

Received: 16/02/2015

Respondent: Louise Cooper

Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above greenfield sites. Greenfield should not be built on, it is to protect from urban sprawl.
Releasing the Green Belt land around West Horndon village would not create a positive or balanced impact to the existing community.

Comment

Representation ID: 12537

Received: 11/02/2015

Respondent: Ms Lynne Matthews

The development of brownfield sites should be used initially with greenfield as a last option. Brownfield sites have already been developed and may have proven to be sustainable and accessible already.

Comment

Representation ID: 12552

Received: 24/04/2015

Respondent: Mr Martin Sorrell

No because it could be on Green Belt which should not be built on and it
would change to make up of the villages.

Comment

Representation ID: 12610

Received: 24/04/2015

Respondent: Barwood Land and Estates Ltd

Agent: Chilmark Consulting Limited

Dispersed development at the edges of villages and small settlements (irrespective of greenfield or previously developed) does not always offer an optimal approach to ensuring the creation of sustainable communities.
There is merit to making provision for new development in existing villages to specifically support rural housing needs and ensure the future for existing services and facilities; however such provision should be limited in order to respect the character and scale of those smaller settlements and to avoid unsustainable patterns of movement. Larger, higher order settlements such as Brentwood, offer the greatest opportunities to meet local housing, economic and service needs in a wholly sustainable manner. Growth should be toward the higher order settlements and to identified sites, (site 022) that are capable of delivering sustainable development early in the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 12619

Received: 10/02/2015

Respondent: Sunbury Homes

Agent: JCN Design

Sunbury Homes support creation of new homes in the north of the borough. Agree a pragmatic approach to growth is only way a balance between interests can be achieved. Development in the Green Belt must be considered if objectively assessed housing need is to be met. Dispersed development minimizes impact on openness of Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12650

Received: 27/04/2015

Respondent: Childerditch Properties

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

The re-use of brownfield sites to meet housing needs is supported. This is referred to at paragraph 111 of the NPPF which states that "Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value." The Range North is a site that, although currently within the Green Belt, can be developed for employment use without significant or wider adverse impacts on the landscape or Green Belt as referred to in the LVA/GB.

Comment

Representation ID: 12665

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Mr CH Courage

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

The SGO recognises an increase in OAN to 360 per annum. The OAN far exceed the availability of brownfield land in the borough. The council cannot provide a sustainable level of housing in the borough without considering suitable greenfield land opportunities. Release of Green Belt sites should particularly be considered when land is adjacent to existing settlement boundaries and will therefore have a minimal impact on the openness of the countryside. Sites should be considered where they are sustainably located and well-situated with regards to existing community facilities and services. Site 218 at Shenfield already well enclosed within the landscape, is available immediately and can be brought forward whilst avoiding harm to the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12668

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: One Property Group Ltd

Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd

Agree villages should grow to provide local need. Given identified constraints, needs should be met by small scale exception sites in villages with services such as public transport, school and shops. These settlements should be identified in the Plan, but strategy should not rely on these as source of housing provision.

Support

Representation ID: 12675

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: The Croll Group

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

The SGO recognises an increase in OAN to 360 homes per annum, higher if to account for past unmet needn order to meet this objectively assessed need it is important that the council allocate appropriate sustainable sites in all areas of the borough that can contribute to meeting needs whilst avoiding significant harm to the Green Belt. Sites should be considered where they are sustainably located and well-situated with regards to existing community facilities and services. This site presents an opportunity for development within a defined settlement boundary which would not require development of either greenfield or brownfield land within the Green Belt. The site is under- utilised and presents an obvious opportunity to relieve pressure on the Green Belt surrounding West Horndon.

Support

Representation ID: 12685

Received: 27/04/2015

Respondent: RH Currie and Co

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Paragraph 3.3 recognises that objectively assessed housing needs are around 360 dwellings per annum, with brownfield unable to meet this. The plan also however recognises that to meet objectively assessed needs and account for past unmet need a higher level of growth is likely to be required. It is clear that there remains a very significant need for housing with the Brentwood Borough. In order to meet this OAN it is important that the council allocate appropriate sustainable sites in all areas of the borough that can contribute to meeting needs whilst avoiding significant harm to the Green Belt.

Support

Representation ID: 12686

Received: 27/04/2015

Respondent: RH Currie and Co

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Release of green belt sites should particularly be considered when land is adjacent to existing settlement boundaries and will therefore have a minimal impact on the openness of the countryside. Sites should be considered where they are sustainably located and well-situated with regards to existing community facilities and services. Suitable sites such as land at Parklands, Ingatestone are already well enclosed within the landscape and can be brought forward whilst avoiding harm to the Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12719

Received: 28/04/2015

Respondent: Persimmon Homes Essex

To meet OAN, Brentwood need to ensure that a range of different sites are allocated. With a large percentage of Green Belt within the Authority, therefore significant numbers are only likely to be realised through this release; however the NPPF supports the early release of Brownfield land. It should be acknowledged that Brownfield release will have higher remediation costs. Early discussions with Developer Interests will ensure that any emerging policy is sound by not rendering a site unviable through contributions that cannot be sustained. This will help the Borough demonstrate the soundness of their allocation sites and policies when examined in front of an Inspector.

Comment

Representation ID: 12741

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd

Smaller sites in larger villages could meet local need. These settlements should be identified in the Plan, but strategy should not rely on these as source of housing provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 12743

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Martin Grant Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

The Borough is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply, only 4.29 years. The Objectively Assessed Need for the Borough has concluded that 360 homes are required per year during 2015-2030. Brownfield capacity within urban areas in the Borough could provide for a maximum of 2,500 new homes, some 3,000 short of the total number needed during the 15 year plan period. Brentwood are reluctant to release any appropriate land from the Green Belt, the five year housing land supply relies upon allocated sites on brownfield land. Realistically the nature of brownfield sites means that their deliverability can be uncertain. Given that it is approaching two years into the five year period and few of these sites have delivered any housing, along with the fact that Brentwood are unable to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, a range of sites should be considered including appropriate Greenfield sites on the edge of urban areas such as the identified land at Herongate to bring forward an appropriate supply of housing and provide a more flexible approach to delivery.

Comment

Representation ID: 12744

Received: 17/02/2015

Respondent: Martin Grant Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

All options available to Brentwood should be considered in order to provide for the forecasted local need a strategy that incorporates both Brownfield sites and those Greenfield sites on the edge of settlement boundaries would provide for a flexible and robust strategy for the delivery of 5,500 houses within the administrative boundary of Brentwood.

Comment

Representation ID: 12753

Received: 24/02/2015

Respondent: Mrs Joanna Durrell

No.

Comment

Representation ID: 12767

Received: 24/02/2015

Respondent: Mr John Copps

Do not touch Green Belt.

Comment

Representation ID: 12782

Received: 29/04/2015

Respondent: Mrs Edna Connaway

Brownfield sites should be considered first, but in order to spread the development, it could be acceptable to approve building on small pockets of Green Belt, where geographically looks logical and supported by roads.