I write in respect of your Strategic Growth Options Consultation

A general comment is that the document needs to be much more evidence based an even handed. There is a bias running through the document resulting in a leading towards development the south of the Borough. I cannot cite all of these, but as examples:

The obvious and severe traffic existing problems on the A127 are not states in the discussion, with development being seen as a possible solution to an inferred need, (3.12) whereas such growth in the A12 corridor 'could have similar negative impacts on infrastructure and services' (3.13) and in the even more so in (2.10) where development in the Brentwood urban area and north of the Borough creates problems whereas in the A127 corridor and West Horndon development creates opportunities.

To prevent such a bias developing the whole consultation needs to be supported by an objective presentation of localities under 'stress' and the costs (both financial and environmental) to deal with these.

Q1: Do you agree with the three broad areas, for the purpose of considering approaches to growth?

No for the following reasons:

It is arguable whether the Borough needs subdividing at all for growth purposes and the approach to growth needs to be based primarily around Green Belt considerations. I believe that to accommodate growth all steps possible should be taken to limit the release of Green Belt and that this course of action should only be followed in extenuating circumstances where there is no other realistic possibility.

Other models for growth should be considered and I believe that to accommodate growth all steps should be taken to minimize the release of Green Belt. Means of doing this include:

* Maximising the use of derelict or underused urban space;
* Increasing densities within already built up areas;
* Developing brownfield areas both within urban and rural localities

Should any release of Greenfield land be absolutely essential these should be considered through
* Release of infill sites
* Release of many smaller sites on the edge of urban areas
* Application of suitably high densities to any greenfield land released.

Further comments on the broad divisions are:

In the absence of evidence relating to transport I think it unlikely that this is the only or most important matter on which to base decisions. Even in the most rural parts of the Borough transport is not particularly poor compared with many parts of Essex let alone the country. The subdivision is based ostensibly on transport but the north / middle / south land subdivisions is just too coarse a reflection of transport availability, this being predominantly linear in nature.

Even accepting transport led subdivisions in principle, this quickly needs to be refined by considering the questions of available capacity and financial and environmental cost to upgrade to accommodate growth. Without these considerations the basis of the study is unsupported.

Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised for each of these three areas?

Partially although the brief analysis 2.14 - 2.19 should be consistent. 2.19 is particularly biased whereby it makes an unsupported link between the character and availability of land for growth being potentially greater (surely this is the ultimate conclusion of considering all aspects of land use) and that the A127 has more scope for improvements than the A12 (and I would add, the A128, B roads and local road network).

To reiterate the point under Q1 if transport really is the key issue then a link is required between problems and solutions before judgements can be suggested.
Issues for the three areas should also concentrate on environmental impacts of the various options.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular sites?

I believe that principles regarding the release of Green Belt should be foremost and in principle all steps should be taken to minimize such release. I agree with the aim to maximize the use of brownfield areas both within urban and rural localities. I also feel that release of Green Belt could be further minimized by appropriately increasing the density of existing settlements.

Even taking this into account should additional sites be required these should generally be of an infill nature or otherwise to create compact communities. This should apply to both urban and rural areas in order to create built up areas that minimise impact on landscape and facilitate the creation of a focus. The extent to which this principle should be applied would be based on minimising impact vs growth.

In terms of the sites illustrated:

3.12 - The completely new town 'Dunton Garden Suburb' would in my view have disproportionate impacts on the Green Belt in addition to creating a new urban centre which I feel would be detrimental to Brentwood Town centre and the road network. In addition the growth suggested for West Horndon is clearly disproportionate to the suggested aims above. Some smaller growth to West Horndon though could be accommodated whilst keeping the existing community compact and focused.

3.13 - In general both these option should be pursued within the aims I mention above. I would oppose the large scale areas shown south east of Hutton as per my comments on the 'Dunton Garden Suburb'. Further linear expansion at Brook Street termed 'Development options at M25' are also highly detrimental to the Green Belt by eroding this already narrow strip between Brentwood and the edge of the Green Belt in Havering, and that at Coombe Woods, Bereden Lane would be a planning travesty. Some smaller growth opportunities to Pilgrims Hatch, Shenfield and Honeypot Lane would perhaps have the least affect on the Green Belt and be close enough to existing built up areas to keep the built up area as compact as possible and focus activity towards existing urban centres. Small extensions to Mountnessing and Ingatestone that are within the confines of the existing road / rail corridor could also be considered.

The idea of an additional junction with the A12 to intercept the A128 is so obvious that I'm surprised that this wasn't incorporated back in the 1960s. It is this sort of link to the interrelationship between growth and transport that I was referring above although in this case it would have a significant added benefit to the community rather than just accommodating additional pressure created by growth.

3.14 - Isolated sites should not in general be considered for housing development such as Clapgate Estate and Thoby Priory. Some smaller growth to each of the main communities shown on the plan (except Navestock) could be accommodated whilst keeping the existing community compact and focused.

Q4: Given the greater capacity for growth along the A127 Corridor, which of the sites put forward do you think is the best location for growth?

This is a strange leading statement as the assumption regarding greater capacity for growth along the A127 Corridor remains undemonstrated. On the face of it the same phrase could be used to open a question about any other part of the Borough. For example, if necessary local road improvements could be considered for the area of the 'five villages' in the northern subdivision.
As discussed above in relation to the A127 Corridor limited growth at West Horndon is the only reasonable option for this sub area.

Q5: Should the A12 Corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites in the edge of urban area?

The same general comment applies in that if so this needs to be based on environmental impacts in addition to a more thorough examination of local constraints and the costs / benefits of satisfactorily resolving these. On the face of it though the five main urban area in this subdivision are likely to offer the most from release of Greenfield land because there is

* A greater perimeter to the built up area and urban and semi urban landscape
* A number of existing town facilities
* A closer proximity of brownfield land and areas requiring regeneration in these areas
* A greater choice that investment from growth will go into Brentwood Borough
* In addition transport links this broad area are good

Q6: In order to provide for local need is it preferable for greenfield sites on the edge of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within Green Belt)?

It is in general much more preferable for brownfield sites to be developed over greenfield sites however the impacts and implications of this do need to be taken into consideration. In some cases brownfield sites are best left in employment use and / or are not in a town or village context and in such cases creation of new housing in the countryside should be avoided.

Q7: To enable future employment need to be met do you agree that the most sustainable approach is to allocate new sites close to the strategic highway Network?

I think the link between employment use and the strategic highway network is likely to be sweeping and in cases the opposite is true. Certain employment uses can be advantageous in creating a positive mixture of land uses and communities. However as stated in the text some employment uses create a number of adverse impacts on communities. I do not think good strategic highway network per se is so important for many employment uses nor for modern business needs' however it may be that such a pattern develops by consequence of considering other aspects of planning. I would say that future employment need should be met by considering the full range of planning matters including impacts on the landscape and the green environment.

Q8: In order to ensure that the Town Centre remains economically sustainable, do you agree that a "Town Centre First" approach should be taken to retail development?

Definitely. Retail lends itself well to densification of existing land use and I do not feel that release of any green belt land should be necessary to accommodate such growth.

Q9: Are there opportunities for more open space provision in the area where you live?

Not so much provision of open space as the need for better recreational linkages between open spaces.

It would be helpful if the Council were more proactive in terms of the environment and, for example, provided public transport to the parks such as South Weald and Thorndon, or at least provide free parking for the first 2 hours. It is important to replace trees on the edge of roads etc to keep Brentwood feeling rural and not urban. To this end it is important to avoid advertising creep on business premises. I think it is important to not have neon signs for e.g. the Holiday Inn and other businesses.

The A127 represents a severe block to north - south recreational routes. Effectively there is no sympathetic crossing for the 6.5km from Great Warley Road to Dunton outside of the Borough. This is very regrettable matter as it limits the value of Thorndon Park to residents of West Horndon and any recreational users coming from the south to the Park.

Q10: Please rate the level to which you value the landscape near where you live. (see page 29)

Q11: To what extent do you think the following is present in the landscape near where you live?

I think it misleading to ask for a comparison between other areas in Brentwood Borough in Q10. The real aim should be to discover what impacts release of any Greenfield land would have. Intrinsic value of the landscape being considered for development is one of these, but the impacts would be a combination of both the nature of the proposed developments (including indirect effects) and aspects related to wider values relating to those areas impacted. The first part needs at least some definition. The second part needs to be judged not just on the parameters listed but also on other factors such as:

Views - this being more about the vistas that can be gained of and from the area under consideration.
Value in providing 'green lungs' to surrounding developed areas
Value in providing green continuity for the purposes of nature conservation recreation
Ability to be viewed and used

To take an example, an urban park may score v low on most of the aspects of question 10 but would suggest that the impacts of developing this space could be huge. My views on impact on landscape are largely answered under question 3.

Q12: Have we considered the main infrastructure issues? Are there other important issues to consider?

I'm not sure that green infrastructure covers the point I wish to make as green infrastructure sounds like a local provision to create a desirable community. The main issues for me surrounds the pattern of any release of Green Belt land to accommodate growth. I firmly believe that even if growth on one or two large scale land releases could be accommodated this model would seriously make Brentwood a poorer Borough compared with a more dispersed growth model. This is because the 'pain' of smaller Green Belt losses can be more easily absorbed and the gain more directly and perhaps fairly directed to the relevant community. With a few large scale developments the 'pain' of growth simply has to be swallowed - no one can ignore the detriment to the Green Belt that would be created by developments the size of that at West Horndon and the Dunton Garden Suburb but the gain is likely to be only too readily swallowed up in dealing with the obvious capacity issues that would be created by such a concentration of living and associated activity.

To restate, a more dispersed growth model can be used to efficiently use existing infrastructure capacity possibly with little intervention whereas large developments will inevitably require greater use of investment into the Borough in solving problems created by the development.

Q13: What do you think the priorities for infrastructure spending should be?

This requires a study in itself and I note that this is being looked into (6.3). As stated throughout this response though I feel that Strategic Growth options need to come out of the conclusions from the infrastructure study (and studies into other such high level matters) rather than being in a response to a more arbitrarily suggested steer.

Object to the village of Blackmore to be utilized for two projects to build houses because:-

1) It is a Green Belt area and should stay that way.
2) The Blackmore School is already full to busting with the children already attending and could not cope with any more children.
3) We have informed when application for houses to be built in Blackmore that the sewage could not cope with the new houses. As we have experienced floods in the past and perhaps in the future if we have heavy rainfalls.
4) The local surgery, The Deal Tree Centre, is already overstretched and it is very difficult to get an appointment unless you book quite a long way ahead.
5) The bus service is very limited and unless you have a car, or even two if it is a family, one cannot easily access Brentwood town centre, Chelmsford, The local surgery, etc. without difficulty.
6) Our Post Office is in jeopardy already and may well close because of cut backs so again difficulty to access Post Offices in other areas.
7) One important area if the Brentwood Borough Council thinks we should have new homes in Blackmore, I should like to point out that there are about six houses that have lain empty for a long time. Why doesn't the Brentwood Borough Council put pressure in those owners of properties that are empty to let them if they have been empty for six months or sell them? This would alleviate a little pressure for more homes to be built. I am sure this applies to Brentwood as well.
8) Blackmore should stay a rural village, otherwise it could become, in time, just an extension of suburbia.

see attached

I am a parent governor on the same committee, but also a resident in Doddinghurst.

I would like to note my objection to the proposed plans for development, particularly in the Doddinghurst area and also surrounding areas.

Doddinghurst is a small village with a wonderful community spirit. To develop any of the beautiful countryside or farmland in the area would be shameful. The current residents have chosen such a location to settle, retire and raise families because of the village's peaceful way, scenic surroundings and safe, close-knit feel.

Aside from the destruction of any tranquillity and beauty, this type of development would cause, we must think of the more practical issues and the possible impact of increasing the population of the area.

The school and doctors surgery are at full capacity. The Deal Tree Doctors Surgery itself is a new development in the area, which services Doddinghurst and the surrounding villages. Being a new build it is unlikely they would have the funding or space to extend the practice further. More residents would put extra pressure on a surgery where it is already difficult to book appointments without a waiting time. The school itself would again be restricted by the size of its current plot and financial funds are already stretched in dealing with maintenance of the grounds and building. Being very familiar with the school layout, I feel additional intake would not be an option with our current facilities or location.

Parking and transport are already a very large issue in the village. The small local 261 bus which services Doddinghurst, runs just once an hour and is not terribly reliable. The village offers street parking only, with small car park sites at the local shops and village hall. The car parks are to service these facilities only. During school drop off and pick up times, these parking facilities are overflowing and already perilous to local school children and families making their way to and from school. Many parents park in Church Lane (my road and the main road through the village), which already causes huge congestion and again for me personally a dangerous walk to school as there are no pavements along the stretch opposite the school. Our access roads such as Church Lane, Mountnessing Lane,Hall Lane, Doddinghurst Road, Wyatts Green Road are regularly needing repair work to fix potholes. Many of these roads are narrow country lanes, with tight turns, reduced road markings and deep verges. They would be unsuitable for excessive use and increased traffic on such dangerous roads could result in more road accidents.

This would bring me to my final concern, safety. As a parent of a young family, I would be very concerned about safety in the village, should such developments go ahead. The increase in traffic alone is a huge worry. As mentioned above our roads are village roads, which already have safety issues. Parts of the village are renowned black spots for accidents and in particular the school, village hall and shops locations are already congested. We have an excellent neighbourhood watch team who keep us informed of any crime in the area, though not excessive we do from time to time experience problems from people not local to the area. Those committing cold calling, robberies and car thefts are generally assumed to be 'strangers' to the village and have therefore travelled from other locations. An increase in accessibility , possibly created by development to Doddinghurst, would be a concern that this could make the village a more convenient target for such crimes.

I appreciate you taking the time to consider my views and ask the you note my strong objection to any development plans in the village of Doddinghurst or its surrounding areas.

See attached document

See attached document

See attached document

Please find a paper Response submitted on behalf of Mr Derek Armiger comprising the following documents all forming part of the response:

1. The completed response form.
2. The attachments being further responses on pages 1-3 on the questions posed, a further 3 pages supporting development on the Sow N Grow Nursery site in Pilgrims Hatch with objections and comments on other sites in Pilgrims Hatch, and a feasibility plan (not to scale) for 42 dwellings for the Sow N Grow Nursery site.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Q1: Yes - Agreed in principle - However the development plan also requires clear over-arching Borough wide policies to allocate sustainable development with priority given to re-using previously developed land.

Q2: Yes - Broadly yes - However each area requires reference to availably of previously developed land in sustainable locations and appropriate weight and priority is given to re-use for residential housing land, within and outside the Green Belt.

Q3: Yes - The Sow N Grow Nursery site comprises previously developed land in an area where there is limited supply of such land in sustainable locations. It is a sustainable location. Pre-application discussions are at an advanced stage and a draft scheme for 42 dwellings has been prepared and submitted herewith. Greenfield sites are less appropriate - See attached information.

Q4: The reuse of previously developed land at West Horndon is supported as better for redevelopment than use of Greenfield Land - as at Dunton Green. Priority should be given to previously developed land.

Q5: Yes - Sites on the edge of urban areas and urban extensions are preferred against new settlements on Greenfield Land. This is because development adjoining or on edge of a settlement allow better utilisation of existing infrastructure and urban services.

Q6: For identified suitable settlements and villages some small greenfield sites in sustainable locations should be considered for release from the Green Belt but after release and allocation as a preferred site for development where is previously developed land e.g. Sow N Grow site.

Q7: Yes - Sustainable employment areas should be allocated close to / near the strategic highway network, on greenfield sites if need be, where sustainable , to allow unsuitable employment sites to be released where there is poor access to the highway and there are adverse amenity impacts.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - There is scope for existing greenfield land adjacent to settlements which may be poorly utilised for agriculture, e.g. scrubland around Pilgrims Hatch that could provide open and recreational space. These should not be released for development.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty - 3
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use - 4
Wildlife Interest - 3
Historic Interest - 3
Tranquility - 2

Q11:
Houses - 4
Commercial / Industrial buildings - 4
Nature reserves / wildlife - 2
Farmland - 2
Woodland - 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land - 2
Infrastructure - 4
Leisure / Recreation Facilities - 2

Q12: Yes - Overall policies required with regard to utilising more efficiently existing infrastructure and urban services and new infrastructure and urban services where these are to be provided.

Q13: Sustainable drainage, recreation / education and highways / public transport services.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

BACKGROUND.

This response follows pre-application discussions and a draft scheme for the Sow N Grow site submitted for pre-application advice. This is on-going, pending progress with the development plan document being adopted, when the site can be released from the defined Metropolitan Green Belt following National Planning Practice Guidance amended in October 2014.

Following the most recent pre-application advice a possible scheme has been amended to now show both Phase 1 and Phase 2 as was requested, with a feasibility layout for some 42 dwellings. The layout prepared for further discussions is now attached and is shown in the Medusa Design drawing forming part of this response.

This site is owned by the three members of the Armiger family who will act together to seek planning permission and develop the site once the requirements of the National Planning Practice Guidance are met or if the development plan process is sufficiently advanced to then allow for the release of this previously developed land from the Green Belt as a preferred allocation. Development could commence very quickly and be completed with five years.

It is a site in a highly sustainable location well served by public transport and other urban services and facilities within walkable distance.

It would not take any greenfield land away from agricultural use. The proposed redevelopment would give many amenity and visual improvements to the locality as well. The current mature and established treeline will be retained. The scheme would enhance the area.

The remaining small businesses need to expand and relocate to better premises and they are willing to do so on short notice terms . It can therefore be quickly developed to help meet objectively assessed housing needs in the Borough and locally.

It is understood that if the site is taken out of the Green Belt through the development plan process in accord with the NPPF and NPPG, then the local planning authority would have no objection in principle to residential redevelopment.

This response is made with this prospect in mind and the latest feasibility plan is enclosed at A4 print out (not to scale).

In addition to the detail of the comments in the response form MrArmiger would like the following comments including the above are added:

Q1: The broad areas for different approaches to the Strategic Growth Options are agreed. However regard should be had to the necessity for over-arching Borough wide policy guidance as well to ensure coherent treatment of development options and future applications to accord with then NPPF and NPPG.

Q2: The availability of previously developed land within each area needs to be known and assessed before policy can be fully determined, and the availability assessed of sites, whether within or outside the Green Belt.

Within the sub-areas where there is limited previously developed land mostly within the green belt then these should be given more weight in releasing such land than areas where there are greater areas of such land, e.g West Homdon, and there should be an overall requirement to ensure there is policy guidance for development giving weight to previously developed land being used, before the release of greenfield land, whether within or outside the greenbelt.

This would be important for the Brentwood and Pilgrims Hatch areas, and any other areas adjoining Brentwood's and other settlement's built up areas.

Q3: For the above reasons and for the reasons given in the first page of this response a previously developed piece of land of limited visual and of no agricultural value or purpose should be given great weight for release for residential redevelopment in new policy even if within the greenbelt, throughout the Borough and for the local area, and for this part of Pilgrims Hatch in particular.

The Sow N Grow site is particularly suitable for release from the Green Belt and residential development as previously developed land. Other Pilgrims Hatch sites are greenfield or scrub open land and not so suitable and should be given lower or no priority.

Such an approach would then allow less favourable sites in greenfield and agricultural use to remain in uses appropriate to the green belt, including open space and recreational use, unless very special circumstances apply. By allowing such sites as Sow N Grow and others comprising previously developed land to be released first for development it follows the need for the use of greenfield sites would be reduced throughout the Borough until essential for release.

Accordingly large green field site are objected to being developed throughout the Borough, and only if demonstrably needed should they be released, and only after all previously developed land is first utilised. A sequential over-arching policy is required.

With regard to Pilgrims Hatch a further two pages submission is made to this document supporting the release of the Sow N Grow Site No.010 with comments.

With regard to Pilgrims Hatch the following sites are not considered suitable for release from the Green Belt and/or residential development with further comments as appended in Response to Question3:

011A, 011B, 011C, 023, 024A, 0248, 053B, 147, 148, 156, 159, 176, 189, and 198.

COMMENTS ON SITES

010 Sow & Grow Nursery, Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Support development for reasons given in a separate document because this is agreed to be, and is, previously developed land.

011A, 011B & 011C Land rear of 10-20 Orchard Lane, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 3.47ha in total. Mainly greenfield and or agricultural land. Not previously developed land (PDL).

012 Garage courts adjacent 49 Lavender Avenue, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection.

023 Land off Doddinghurst Road, either side of A12, Brentwood - Object. 7.2 ha. Mainly greenfield/ animal sanctuary land. Not PDL.

024A & 024B Sawyers Hall Farm, Sawyers Hall Lane/Doddinghurst Road, Brentwood - Object. In total some 20.25 ha. Mainly greenfield / animal sanctuary land. Not PDL.

053A Land rear of 146-148 Hatch Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No Comment.

053B Land rear of 146-148 Hatch Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 4.0 ha mainly greenfield or woodland. Not PDL.

054 Garages adjacent 25 Kings George's Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No comment.

086 Land at Sandringham Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection.

088 Bishops Hall Community Centre and land & 089 Brentwood Centre and land - No objection to retention of the existing use.

097 Harewood Road bungalows, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection as above (89).

132A & 132B Land at Albany Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection if PDL.

134 Land at Gloucester Road, Pilgrims Hatch, Brentwood - No objection of PDL.

137A & 137B Land at Broomwood Gardens and Dounsell Court, Ongar Road - No objection if PDL.

147 Land at Joy Fook restaurant, adjacent Bentley Golf Club, Ongar Road - Object. 0.47 ha. Isolated site. Not a sustainable location.

148 Land at Moat Farm, 48 Crow Green Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object 0.69 ha. Greenfield land and not PDL.

156 Greenacres Riding Stables & land opposite, Beads Hall Lane - Object 5.5 ha. The site is not fully PDL and in an unsustainable location.

159 Land off Crow Green Lane, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 2.8 ha Greenfield land and not PDL.

176 Land at former Bentley Zoo, Hullets Lane, Brentwood - Object. Garden land not PDL

189 Former Catrina Nursery, Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 2.89 ha. Greenfield land and not fully PDL.

198 Land to the south-east of Doddinghurst Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 5.69 ha. Greenfield and agricultural land and not PDL.

227 144 Crow Green Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No comment.

GT009 Cottage Garden, Beads Hall Lane, Pilgrims Hatch - Gypsy site no comment.

Please find a paper Response submitted on behalf of Ms Maxine Armiger comprising the following documents all forming part of the response:

1. The completed response form.
2. The attachments being further responses on pages 1-3 on the questions posed, a further 3 pages supporting development on the Sow N Grow Nursery site in Pilgrims Hatch with objections and comments on other sites in Pilgrims Hatch, and a feasibility plan (not to scale) for 42 dwellings for the Sow N Grow Nursery site.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Q1: Yes - Agreed in principle - However the development plan also requires clear over-arching Borough wide policies to allocate sustainable development with priority given to re-using previously developed land.

Q2: Yes - Broadly yes - However each area requires reference to availably of previously developed land in sustainable locations and appropriate weight and priority is given to re-use for residential housing land, within and outside the Green Belt.

Q3: Yes - The Sow N Grow Nursery site comprises previously developed land in an area where there is limited supply of such land in sustainable locations. It is a sustainable location. Pre-application discussions are at an advanced stage and a draft scheme for 42 dwellings has been prepared and submitted herewith. Greenfield sites are less appropriate - See attached information.

Q4: The reuse of previously developed land at West Horndon is supported as better for redevelopment than use of Greenfield Land - as at Dunton Green. Priority should be given to previously developed land.

Q5: Yes - Sites on the edge of urban areas and urban extensions are preferred against new settlements on Greenfield Land. This is because development adjoining or on edge of a settlement allow better utilisation of existing infrastructure and urban services.

Q6: For identified suitable settlements and villages some small greenfield sites in sustainable locations should be considered for release from the Green Belt but after release and allocation as a preferred site for development where is previously developed land e.g. Sow N Grow site.

Q7: Yes - Sustainable employment areas should be allocated close to / near the strategic highway network, on greenfield sites if need be, where sustainable , to allow unsuitable employment sites to be released where there is poor access to the highway and there are adverse amenity impacts.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - There is scope for existing greenfield land adjacent to settlements which may be poorly utilised for agriculture, e.g. scrubland around Pilgrims Hatch that could provide open and recreational space. These should not be released for development.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty - 3
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use - 4
Wildlife Interest - 3
Historic Interest - 3
Tranquility - 2

Q11:
Houses - 4
Commercial / Industrial buildings - 4
Nature reserves / wildlife - 2
Farmland - 2
Woodland - 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land - 2
Infrastructure - 4
Leisure / Recreation Facilities - 2

Q12: Yes - Overall policies required with regard to utilising more efficiently existing infrastructure and urban services and new infrastructure and urban services where these are to be provided.

Q13: Sustainable drainage, recreation / education and highways / public transport services.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

BACKGROUND.

This response follows pre-application discussions and a draft scheme for the Sow N Grow site submitted for pre-application advice. This is on-going, pending progress with the development plan document being adopted, when the site can be released from the defined Metropolitan Green Belt following National Planning Practice Guidance amended in October 2014.

Following the most recent pre-application advice a possible scheme has been amended to now show both Phase 1 and Phase 2 as was requested, with a feasibility layout for some 42 dwellings. The layout prepared for further discussions is now attached and is shown in the Medusa Design drawing forming part of this response.

This site is owned by the three members of the Armiger family who will act together to seek planning permission and develop the site once the requirements of the National Planning Practice Guidance are met or if the development plan process is sufficiently advanced to then allow for the release of this previously developed land from the Green Belt as a preferred allocation. Development could commence very quickly and be completed with five years.

It is a site in a highly sustainable location well served by public transport and other urban services and facilities within walkable distance.

It would not take any greenfield land away from agricultural use. The proposed redevelopment would give many amenity and visual improvements to the locality as well. The current mature and established treeline will be retained. The scheme would enhance the area.

The remaining small businesses need to expand and relocate to better premises and they are willing to do so on short notice terms . It can therefore be quickly developed to help meet objectively assessed housing needs in the Borough and locally.

It is understood that if the site is taken out of the Green Belt through the development plan process in accord with the NPPF and NPPG, then the local planning authority would have no objection in principle to residential redevelopment.

This response is made with this prospect in mind and the latest feasibility plan is enclosed at A4 print out (not to scale).

In addition to the detail of the comments in the response form MrArmiger would like the following comments including the above are added:

Q1: The broad areas for different approaches to the Strategic Growth Options are agreed. However regard should be had to the necessity for over-arching Borough wide policy guidance as well to ensure coherent treatment of development options and future applications to accord with then NPPF and NPPG.

Q2: The availability of previously developed land within each area needs to be known and assessed before policy can be fully determined, and the availability assessed of sites, whether within or outside the Green Belt.

Within the sub-areas where there is limited previously developed land mostly within the green belt then these should be given more weight in releasing such land than areas where there are greater areas of such land, e.g West Homdon, and there should be an overall requirement to ensure there is policy guidance for development giving weight to previously developed land being used, before the release of greenfield land, whether within or outside the greenbelt.

This would be important for the Brentwood and Pilgrims Hatch areas, and any other areas adjoining Brentwood's and other settlement's built up areas.

Q3: For the above reasons and for the reasons given in the first page of this response a previously developed piece of land of limited visual and of no agricultural value or purpose should be given great weight for release for residential redevelopment in new policy even if within the greenbelt, throughout the Borough and for the local area, and for this part of Pilgrims Hatch in particular.

The Sow N Grow site is particularly suitable for release from the Green Belt and residential development as previously developed land. Other Pilgrims Hatch sites are greenfield or scrub open land and not so suitable and should be given lower or no priority.

Such an approach would then allow less favourable sites in greenfield and agricultural use to remain in uses appropriate to the green belt, including open space and recreational use, unless very special circumstances apply. By allowing such sites as Sow N Grow and others comprising previously developed land to be released first for development it follows the need for the use of greenfield sites would be reduced throughout the Borough until essential for release.

Accordingly large green field site are objected to being developed throughout the Borough, and only if demonstrably needed should they be released, and only after all previously developed land is first utilised. A sequential over-arching policy is required.

With regard to Pilgrims Hatch a further two pages submission is made to this document supporting the release of the Sow N Grow Site No.010 with comments.

With regard to Pilgrims Hatch the following sites are not considered suitable for release from the Green Belt and/or residential development with further comments as appended in Response to Question3:

011A, 011B, 011C, 023, 024A, 0248, 053B, 147, 148, 156, 159, 176, 189, and 198.

COMMENTS ON SITES

010 Sow & Grow Nursery, Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Support development for reasons given in a separate document because this is agreed to be, and is, previously developed land.

011A, 011B & 011C Land rear of 10-20 Orchard Lane, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 3.47ha in total. Mainly greenfield and or agricultural land. Not previously developed land (PDL).

012 Garage courts adjacent 49 Lavender Avenue, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection.

023 Land off Doddinghurst Road, either side of A12, Brentwood - Object. 7.2 ha. Mainly greenfield/ animal sanctuary land. Not PDL.

024A & 024B Sawyers Hall Farm, Sawyers Hall Lane/ Doddinghurst Road, Brentwood - Object. In total some 20.25 ha. Mainly greenfield/ animal sanctuary land. Not PDL.

053A Land rear of 146-148 Hatch Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No Comment.

053B Land rear of 146-148 Hatch Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 4.0 ha mainly greenfield or woodland. Not PDL.

054 Garages adjacent 25 Kings George's Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No comment.

086 Land at Sandringham Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection.

088 Bishops Hall Community Centre and land & 089 Brentwood Centre and land - No objection to retention of the existing use.

097 Harewood Road bungalows, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection as above (89).

132A & 132B Land at Albany Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection if PDL.

134 Land at Gloucester Road, Pilgrims Hatch, Brentwood - No objection of PDL.

137A & 137B Land at Broomwood Gardens and Dounsell Court, Ongar Road - No objection if PDL.

147 Land at Joy Fook restaurant, adjacent Bentley Golf Club, Ongar Road - Object. 0.47 ha. Isolated site. Not a sustainable location.

148 Land at Moat Farm, 48 Crow Green Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object 0.69 ha. Greenfield land and not PDL.

156 Greenacres Riding Stables & land opposite, Beads Hall Lane - Object 5.5 ha. The site is not fully PDL and in an unsustainable location.

159 Land off Crow Green Lane, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 2.8 ha Greenfield land and not PDL.

176 Land at former Bentley Zoo, Hullets Lane, Brentwood - Object. Garden land not PDL

189 Former Catrina Nursery, Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 2.89 ha. Greenfield land and not fully PDL.

198 Land to the south-east of Doddinghurst Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 5.69 ha. Greenfield and agricultural land and not PDL.

227 144 Crow Green Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No comment.

GT009 Cottage Garden, Beads Hall Lane, Pilgrims Hatch - Gypsy site no comment.

Please find a paper Response submitted on behalf of Mr Derek Armiger comprising the following documents all forming part of the response:

1. The completed response form.
2. The attachments being further responses on pages 1-3 on the questions posed, a further 3 pages supporting development on the Sow N Grow Nursery site in Pilgrims Hatch with objections and comments on other sites in Pilgrims Hatch, and a feasibility plan (not to scale) for 42 dwellings for the Sow N Grow Nursery site.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE

Q1: Yes - Agreed in principle - However the development plan also requires clear over-arching Borough wide policies to allocate sustainable development with priority given to re-using previously developed land.

Q2: Yes - Broadly yes - However each area requires reference to availably of previously developed land in sustainable locations and appropriate weight and priority is given to re-use for residential housing land, within and outside the Green Belt.

Q3: Yes - The Sow N Grow Nursery site comprises previously developed land in an area where there is limited supply of such land in sustainable locations. It is a sustainable location. Pre-application discussions are at an advanced stage and a draft scheme for 42 dwellings has been prepared and submitted herewith. Greenfield sites are less appropriate - See attached information.

Q4: The reuse of previously developed land at West Horndon is supported as better for redevelopment than use of Greenfield Land - as at Dunton Green. Priority should be given to previously developed land.

Q5: Yes - Sites on the edge of urban areas and urban extensions are preferred against new settlements on Greenfield Land. This is because development adjoining or on edge of a settlement allow better utilisation of existing infrastructure and urban services.

Q6: For identified suitable settlements and villages some small greenfield sites in sustainable locations should be considered for release from the Green Belt but after release and allocation as a preferred site for development where is previously developed land e.g. Sow N Grow site.

Q7: Yes - Sustainable employment areas should be allocated close to / near the strategic highway network, on greenfield sites if need be, where sustainable , to allow unsuitable employment sites to be released where there is poor access to the highway and there are adverse amenity impacts.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - There is scope for existing greenfield land adjacent to settlements which may be poorly utilised for agriculture, e.g. scrubland around Pilgrims Hatch that could provide open and recreational space. These should not be released for development.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty - 3
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use - 4
Wildlife Interest - 3
Historic Interest - 3
Tranquility - 2

Q11:
Houses - 4
Commercial / Industrial buildings - 4
Nature reserves / wildlife - 2
Farmland - 2
Woodland - 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land - 2
Infrastructure - 4
Leisure / Recreation Facilities - 2

Q12: Yes - Overall policies required with regard to utilising more efficiently existing infrastructure and urban services and new infrastructure and urban services where these are to be provided.

Q13: Sustainable drainage, recreation / education and highways / public transport services.

CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

BACKGROUND.

This response follows pre-application discussions and a draft scheme for the Sow N Grow site submitted for pre-application advice. This is on-going, pending progress with the development plan document being adopted, when the site can be released from the defined Metropolitan Green Belt following National Planning Practice Guidance amended in October 2014.

Following the most recent pre-application advice a possible scheme has been amended to now show both Phase 1 and Phase 2 as was requested, with a feasibility layout for some 42 dwellings. The layout prepared for further discussions is now attached and is shown in the Medusa Design drawing forming part of this response.

This site is owned by the three members of the Armiger family who will act together to seek planning permission and develop the site once the requirements of the National Planning Practice Guidance are met or if the development plan process is sufficiently advanced to then allow for the release of this previously developed land from the Green Belt as a preferred allocation. Development could commence very quickly and be completed with five years.

It is a site in a highly sustainable location well served by public transport and other urban services and facilities within walkable distance.

It would not take any greenfield land away from agricultural use. The proposed redevelopment would give many amenity and visual improvements to the locality as well. The current mature and established treeline will be retained. The scheme would enhance the area.

The remaining small businesses need to expand and relocate to better premises and they are willing to do so on short notice terms . It can therefore be quickly developed to help meet objectively assessed housing needs in the Borough and locally.

It is understood that if the site is taken out of the Green Belt through the development plan process in accord with the NPPF and NPPG, then the local planning authority would have no objection in principle to residential redevelopment.

This response is made with this prospect in mind and the latest feasibility plan is enclosed at A4 print out (not to scale).

In addition to the detail of the comments in the response form MrArmiger would like the following comments including the above are added:

Q1: The broad areas for different approaches to the Strategic Growth Options are agreed. However regard should be had to the necessity for over-arching Borough wide policy guidance as well to ensure coherent treatment of development options and future applications to accord with then NPPF and NPPG.

Q2: The availability of previously developed land within each area needs to be known and assessed before policy can be fully determined, and the availability assessed of sites, whether within or outside the Green Belt.

Within the sub-areas where there is limited previously developed land mostly within the green belt then these should be given more weight in releasing such land than areas where there are greater areas of such land, e.g West Homdon, and there should be an overall requirement to ensure there is policy guidance for development giving weight to previously developed land being used, before the release of greenfield land, whether within or outside the greenbelt.

This would be important for the Brentwood and Pilgrims Hatch areas, and any other areas adjoining Brentwood's and other settlement's built up areas.

Q3: For the above reasons and for the reasons given in the first page of this response a previously developed piece of land of limited visual and of no agricultural value or purpose should be given great weight for release for residential redevelopment in new policy even if within the greenbelt, throughout the Borough and for the local area, and for this part of Pilgrims Hatch in particular.

The Sow N Grow site is particularly suitable for release from the Green Belt and residential development as previously developed land. Other Pilgrims Hatch sites are greenfield or scrub open land and not so suitable and should be given lower or no priority.

Such an approach would then allow less favourable sites in greenfield and agricultural use to remain in uses appropriate to the green belt, including open space and recreational use, unless very special circumstances apply. By allowing such sites as Sow N Grow and others comprising previously developed land to be released first for development it follows the need for the use of greenfield sites would be reduced throughout the Borough until essential for release.

Accordingly large green field site are objected to being developed throughout the Borough, and only if demonstrably needed should they be released, and only after all previously developed land is first utilised. A sequential over-arching policy is required.

With regard to Pilgrims Hatch a further two pages submission is made to this document supporting the release of the Sow N Grow Site No.010 with comments.

With regard to Pilgrims Hatch the following sites are not considered suitable for release from the Green Belt and/or residential development with further comments as appended in Response to Question3:

011A, 011B, 011C, 023, 024A, 0248, 053B, 147, 148, 156, 159, 176, 189, and 198.

COMMENTS ON SITES

010 Sow & Grow Nursery, Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Support development for reasons given in a separate document because this is agreed to be, and is, previously developed land.

011A, 011B & 011C Land rear of 10-20 Orchard Lane, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 3.47ha in total. Mainly greenfield and or agricultural land. Not previously developed land (PDL).

012 Garage courts adjacent 49 Lavender Avenue, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection.

023 Land off Doddinghurst Road, either side of A12, Brentwood - Object. 7.2 ha. Mainly greenfield/ animal sanctuary land. Not PDL.

024A & 024B Sawyers Hall Farm, Sawyers Hall Lane/ Doddinghurst Road, Brentwood - Object. In total some 20.25 ha. Mainly greenfield/ animal sanctuary land. Not PDL.

053A Land rear of 146-148 Hatch Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No Comment.

053B Land rear of 146-148 Hatch Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 4.0 ha mainly greenfield or woodland. Not PDL.

054 Garages adjacent 25 Kings George's Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No comment.

086 Land at Sandringham Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection.

088 Bishops Hall Community Centre and land & 089 Brentwood Centre and land - No objection to retention of the existing use.

097 Harewood Road bungalows, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection as above (89).

132A & 132B Land at Albany Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No objection if PDL.

134 Land at Gloucester Road, Pilgrims Hatch, Brentwood - No objection of PDL.

137A & 137B Land at Broomwood Gardens and Dounsell Court, Ongar Road - No objection if PDL.

147 Land at Joy Fook restaurant, adjacent Bentley Golf Club, Ongar Road - Object. 0.47 ha. Isolated site. Not a sustainable location.

148 Land at Moat Farm, 48 Crow Green Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object 0.69 ha. Greenfield land and not PDL.

156 Greenacres Riding Stables & land opposite, Beads Hall Lane - Object 5.5 ha. The site is not fully PDL and in an unsustainable location.

159 Land off Crow Green Lane, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 2.8 ha Greenfield land and not PDL.

176 Land at former Bentley Zoo, Hullets Lane, Brentwood - Object. Garden land not PDL

189 Former Catrina Nursery, Ongar Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 2.89 ha. Greenfield land and not fully PDL.

198 Land to the south-east of Doddinghurst Road, Pilgrims Hatch - Object. 5.69 ha. Greenfield and agricultural land and not PDL.

227 144 Crow Green Road, Pilgrims Hatch - No comment.

GT009 Cottage Garden, Beads Hall Lane, Pilgrims Hatch - Gypsy site no comment.

Q1: Do you agree with the broad areas, for the purpose of considering approaches to growth?
Yes
No X

Comments








?

Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised within each of these areas?

Yes
No X

Comments







?

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular sites?

Yes X
No

Comments
Sites 209, 043,080,188 are not appropriate for development sites - there are already significant safety issues with the crossroads adjacent to these proposed development areas and an increase in vehicular movements would only prove to exacerbate the problem. The sites are very rural and there is no connectivity in terms of cycle routes or pedestrian routes to the neighbouring village, so residents are more likely to use conventional forms of transport because of distance and safety issues. Site 209 is also open fields at the moment and development of these would have both a detrimental effect in terms of environmental impact on the area and views for the neighbouring properties.









?

Q4: Given the greater capacity for growth along the A127 corridor, which of the sites put forward do you think is the best location for growth?



Comments







?

Q5: Should the A12 corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites on the edge of urban areas?
Yes X
No

Comments

This would be more appropriate than the rural areas depending on improvements to local infrastructure and connectivity to arterial routes and M25 junctions





?

Q6: In order to provide for local need is it preferable for Greenfield sites on the edge of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within the Green Belt)?



Comments

Development of brownfield sites






?

Q7: To enable future employment need to be met do you agree that the most sustainable approach is to allocate new sites close to the strategic highway network?
Yes X
No

Comments

For the purpose of transport and commuting.






?

Q8: In order to ensure that the Town Centre remains economically sustainable, do you agree that a "Town Centre First" approach should be taken to retail development?
Yes X
No

Comments










?

Q9: Are there opportunities for more open space provision in the area where you live?

Yes

No X

Comments
NO






?

Q10: Please rate the level to which you value the landscape near where you live (on a scale of 1 to 5), as compared to other areas within Brentwood Borough, for the following aspects:
Aspect: Very Low Low Average High Very High
Scenic Beauty / Attractivness 1 2 3 4 5X
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use 1 2 3 4 5X
Wildlife Interest 1 2 3 4 5X
Historic Interest 1 2 3 4 5X
Tranquility 1 2 3 4 5X
Other - please specify:

............RURAL............................. 1 2 3 4 5X


?

Q11: To what extent do you think the following are present in the landscape near where you live (on a scale of 1 to 4):
Aspect: Absent Occasional Frequent Predominant
Houses 1 2 3 4X
Commercial / Industrial buildings 2X 3 4
Nature Reserves / Wildlife 1 2 3 4X
Farmland 1 2 3 4X
Woodland 1 2 3 4X
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land 1 X 3 4
Infastructure (Road / Rail / Pylons etc.) 1 2X 3 4
Leisure / Recreation Facilities 1 2X 3 4
Other - please specify:

......................................... 1 2 3 4





?

Q12: Have we considered the main infrastructure issues? Are there other important issues to consider?
Yes
No

Comments







?

Q13: What do you think the priorities for infrastructure spending should be?




Comments

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

I have just learnt of plans to develop two fields in Blackmore village into housing estates. Quite honestly the thought horrifies me.
I moved into the village 47 years ago when my children were very young, simply to get away from town life and to give my family a peaceful, country style upbringing, which is what I am sure todays young families want also.
This village is unique, over the years the residents have formed lasting friendships and together have built a community that works hard to help others, forming various clubs, raising money for charities, and ensuring that as a village we thrive.
We have a small, successful, village school - how on earth could that cope with such a large influx of new children? The local Doctors practice is already bursting at the seams without expecting it to take on a few hundred more patients. The roads to and from Blackmore are little more than lanes and are already extremely busy, and with a bus service that only offers one bus per hour to Brentwood, or one bus every two hours to Chelmsford, these village roads will become even worse.
Of course I understand new homes are needed for our growing population, but surely NOT on village fields, there are plenty of brown field sites that could be developed and better utilised.
I hope and trust common sense will prevail and the council will heed the concerns of all Blackmore residents.

I am writing to you to object to the council's proposal to consider changing the land use for the land immediately behind my house and to oppose any form of development on this site. A year ago, I lived in Corringham in a street where every house was overlooked by the neighbours' houses and where the variety of wildlife was minimal at best. I made the decision to move into my partner's house in Doddinghurst and since then I have embraced the wildlife that country living has to offer. Whilst I recognise that there is a need for more housing in the borough as a whole, I would hate to see urban areas encroaching on rural areas and blurring the boundaries until there is eventually no distinction between them. If I had wanted to live in an urban area, I wouldn't have moved to Doddinghurst.

The land I am referring to specifically is behind 25 Priory Mead which can be accessed only by a single track lane which runs across the bottom of my garden and can be accessed via Rectory Chase. This is a woodland area which I believe is home to an abundance of wildlife that regularly visits my garden. At the end of January, I took part in the RSPB bird watch and in just one hour I was able to record seeing great spotted woodpeckers, jays, nuthatches, long-tailed tits, great tits, coal tits, robins, collared doves, thrushes, blackbirds, etc. In addition to this, squirrels visit regularly and I've heard tawny owls on numerous occasions. I feel sure that there would be a dramatic decline in wildlife should the land be destroyed and houses built there instead. Is this really the future that we want for our children and the next generations? A life where spotting a bird becomes a rarity, rather than the norm?
We are in the fortunate position that our garden has a large number of fully established Oak trees in it. These trees are protected by a preservation order and to have any kind of work carried out on the trees, such as crowning them, we have to apply for permission from the council to do so. In the land immediately behind us there are also fully established Oak trees. I truly hope that you aren't going to allow these trees to be destroyed in order to replace them with houses. In a country where housing estates are springing up everywhere and where land is continually being developed, we need to preserve as many "natural" spaces as possible in order to ensure that wildlife can flourish.

I would like you to formally note my objection and I would like to be kept informed of any proposals or decisions regarding this land as it has a direct impact on both myself and my neighbours.

see attached

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.

see attached

see attached.

see attached.

see attached.

see attached

see attached

I am writing as a Governor of Doddinghurst Infant School in relation to the planning proposals in and around the Doddinghurst area.

Firstly, I would like to reiterate all the comments and objections that our Chair of Governors Kris Sharman has made. As a committee we are strongly against wholesale developments in the area due to the lack of adequate infrastructure. Doddinghurst has very limited public transport and with a large number of young families parents are already affected by extremely poor roads and parking around the centre of the village. Further development would only exacerbate this issue.

As a village with a large number of young families and elderly residents as this demographic changes with young families moving into the village in the place of our elderly residents we will experience strains on our resources. This will only be compounded by increased development within the area.

I am aware of the need of increased housing within the larger Brentwood area, however targeting villages as an area of growth will create numerous issues and future costs for the council, as well as damaging the environment and weakening strong communities.

I would also like to make the council aware of residents disappointment at the councils inadequate provision for communicating planning proposals.

Many thanks for your attention and I look forward to your response

I am responding in relation to the planning development to the local Brentwood Villages as a Governor of Doddinghurst Infant School.

I was made aware of these plans only last week by the letter sent to the houses within the Blackmore Parish. Given the importance and severe impact such decision will make, it is important that all residents in all local parishes are kept up to date with the publicity of these plans.

Needless to say I object to such plans. My reasons for my objection include the following:-

Local schools are already at maximum capacity or there abouts. Where would these children brought into the villages be educated? DIS and no doubt others are already finding the restrictions on school finances a problem to control. How will addition children in the area assist this?

Public transport links are extremely limited with just one bus service into Brentwood.

Roads into the villages are limited with continuos road repairs needed, continuous flooding in winter months. Roads such as Mountnessing Lane, Pettits Lane, Wyatts Green Road to name just a few.

Parking at Doddinghurst schools is already a problem at drop off and pick up times, with cars using both the shops and public house as an overflow.

The doctors surgery is already struggling at full capacity. Trying to get an appointment to see a GP is a very timely and difficult procedure.

In addition to this and on a private note, it must be considered that people choose to live in a village to benefit from the small niche community a village live brings. By extending the village you are removing this benefit, if people wanted to live in a town they would not have chose Doddinghurst and the surrounding parishes.

If you need anything further from me please do not hesitate to contact me on this email address or on my telephone number.

see attached

see attached.