We do not want anymore of our Green Belt being built on, the Thriftwood Estate was built on GREEN BELT, this was originally Farm land and I remember my Aunt looking out and seeing Pheasants. We moved here to get away from the hustle and bustle of London so that we can walk one way to catch a Bus and walk the other way to be in the countryside within 5 minutes We do not want anymore taken from us, SAVE OUR COUNTRYSIDE, ANCIENT WOODLANDS, WONDERFUL VIEWS AND BLUEBELLS. Aren't the Bluebells protected????

I've just become aware of a plan to encroach on large areas of open countryside between Hutton and Ingrave, thanks to a fact sheet pushed through my door earlier today.

I couldn't find the consultation form on the Brentwood Borough website, so thought I'd email you directly.

I'm deeply opposed to any plan to build on green belt, for the simple reason that we need the green belt to retain any semblance of a natural environment in which to live. I suspect the main driver behind this building plan is the increasing population stress in this area - in fact, in the southeast generally. I've long thought that the government, let alone individual councils, should put in place a policy of at least to some extent trying to equalise the population over the country as a whole. As it is this area is just swamped with people, with a consequent stress on the existing infrastructure. I'm sure most people who settle in this country for whatever reason end up in the southeast, simply because this is where most of the jobs are. But someone has to call time on this eventually, otherwise we're going to have wall-to-wall housing and roads and very few natural areas to feed the human spirit. I think this is a spiritual matter at its core, more even than economic. I live on Tennyson Road and I love nothing more than popping round to Creasey's Farm off Hutton Village, walking along the tracks there and looking around me, taking in the vista. It helps me to get my bearings, physically, emotionally and spiritually. But it's also a question of whether we really care about the rest of the natural order, especially wildlife. What gives us the right to reduce their numbers by building left, right and centre?

I'm aware my thoughts on this are a little vague right now, and I'm not really a political animal, but I hope my voice can add something to a force of opposite against this plan.

I would like to put on record my concern that our green belt will be used for housing. We need it for future generations.
Please first look at the current empty properties and build on them - there's many in the Brentwood area!

see attached

Please find attached my completed consultation questionaire for the Strategic Growth Options Consultation.
I support the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework for the protection of the Green Belt to prevent urban creep.
I strongly oppose inappropriate development in the green belt except in exceptional circumstances where the benefits clearly outweigh the harm and we also support the view that housing need alone does not constitute exceptional benefit.
However, I acknowledge the challenge that the Strategic Housing Allocation numbers present to Brentwood Borough Council. I recognise that without clear locations for the necessary houses identified by the Strategic Housing Allocation, Brentwood Borough Council will be highly unlikely to have a robust Local Development Plan approved. That presents the risk of aggressive speculative developers attempting to obtain planning approval anywhere in the borough and that the appeals system could result in inappropriate and poorly coordinated development taking place.
Thus in the unfortunate circumstance where Green Belt does have to be sacrificed in order to meet the statutory obligations of the Strategic Housing Allocation it is essential that only the minimum amount of land is sacrificed and that this is done in locations and in such a way that harm and urban creep is kept to an absolute minimum.
All my responses to the questions in the consultation must be viewed in this light.

see attached

see attached

see attached.

see attached.

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

Dear Sirs,

I am writing with regard to Brentwood's Strategic Growth Options Plan.

I am resident in Ingrave and wish to voice my concern and disapproval of the plans to build residential housing on greenbelt land. If any of the listed proposals are given the go ahead a precedent will be set and we will find ourselves heading towards becoming part of yet another "urban sprawl".

Additionally, large numbers of houses built in any of the indicated areas will inevitably put a huge strain on the A127 and A128, and more importantly on Basildon Hospital, which as we all know is already severely overstretched.

With my thanks in anticipation of your attention to my comments,

Yours faithfully,
Theresa Webster (Mrs)

Gregory Gray Associates is instructed to write on behalf of our client, Wyevale Garden Centres, in response to the above consultation.

Our client has an interest in Ongar Garden Centre which extends 3.87ha and is accessed from the A128, to the east of the village of Chipping Ongar. Whilst the northern part of the site is subject to flooding, all of the existing garden centre buildings and associated areas of hardstanding which provide parking for a total of 200 cars, are located within Flood Zone 1. A site plan accompanies this correspondence.

The site provides good accessibility to the strategic highway network. It is located within the Green Belt, however due to its highly developed nature and the level of activity currently associated with the lawful use, our client is confident that the site could be redeveloped for alternative purposes in a manner entirely consistent with the final bullet point of para. 89 of the NPPF.

It is noted that identified housing and employment needs that have to be accommodated over the Plan period have increased substantially since the Council's earlier Local Plan Preferred Options Consultation. Furthermore, that the capacity of identified, urban, brownfield sites is not sufficient to meet this level of need such that use of Green Belt land to meet identified development needs must be considered.

Whilst our client has not previously submitted their site for consideration by the Council, it is considered to be eminently suitable to meet identified development needs through its allocation for alternative retail, residential, employment or leisure purposes.

Question 3
Our client favours the 'North of the Borough Housing Sites' Option set out in the Consultation document. The re-use of previously developed land as a priority is supported (see Question 6 below) and the redevelopment of our client's site for residential purposes would be entirely consistent with this approach.

The suggestion that "For brownfield sites in the Green Belt, a criteria based policy could be prepared as part of the Local Plan to ensure that only appropriate sites are redeveloped in accordance with national policy" is particularly welcomed.

Question 6
Our client supports the prioritisation of brownfield sites, over greenfield alternatives since such an approach would be entirely consistent with NPPF objectives and would assist the Borough in retaining the extent and open character of the existing Green Belt.

Question 7
It is considered essential that new employment provision is located close to the strategic highway network. Ongar Garden Centre enjoys a high degree of accessibility via the A128, A414 and A12 to the M11 and M25. Its developed nature and the level of vehicular movements associated with the existing retail use means that it offers a suitable site for new employment provision, which could be achieved without detriment to the existing character of the area.

Conclusions
The Council is requested to consider the allocation of Ongar Garden Centre as a suitable site for residential, retail, employment or leisure purposes as part of the current Strategic Growth Options consultation process. The site could be redeveloped for alternative purposes in a manner consistent with existing green belt policies and offers an opportunity to contribute towards meeting the Borough's identified development needs without detriment to the existing character of the area.

Furthermore, its allocation would be consistent with an approach which priorities the re-use of existing brownfield sites over greenfield alternatives and our client supports the adoption of such an approach as a means of accommodating strategic growth over the Plan period.

See attached

I object to Brentwood's strategic growth , due to the destruction of green belt land and wildlife habits, already congested roads

see attached

Q1: Yes - The Borough logically splits itself into three identified areas, which are also of
different character. It is sensible to look at the main infrastructure corridors as
individual areas. In particular to identify the central A12 Corridor as this includes the
main settlements of Brentwood and Shenfield and which is favourable in
sustainability terms.
Q2: Yes and No - There is the implied suggestion in Paragraph 2.17 that development opportunities will only be considered alongside opportunities surrounding the urban area within the Green Belt. As the main centres are the most sensible and sustainable to focus development the LPA should look at all sites including greenfield within the urban area, as well as the urban edges.

Q3: Yes - There are a number of urban edge sites in sustainable locations which will be logical rounding off or infill within the Green Belt, which will make good housing sites, contributing to the relevant small local communities as well as indirectly established community facilities.

The Council should follow a hierarchical approach to identifying land to meet
residential need, along the following lines:

1. Existing urban areas
2. Existing developed sites in Green Belt
3. Review of Green Belt boundaries to ensure consistency with Para 84 and 85
NPPG guidance. Boundaries to follow clear, recognisable, physical features
and Green Belt not to include land which is unnecessary to keep open (such
as land surrounded by development or which is part of a village).
4. Release of sites on the edge of existing settlements.
5. New settlements (Dutton Garden Suburb).

It is only by following a hierarchical approach, and analysing the impact of the Green
Belt at each stage, that the Council can assure itself that the overall impact of the
Green Belt will be minimised.

If this analysis justifies the release of the Dutton Garden Suburb then (for the
reasons that we indicate in the following question) it is very unlikely that it will make
any contribution to current 5 year housing supply or that will be built out in this Local
Plan period. It is an allocation that will cover two Local Plan periods and the Council
will therefore need to allocate additional land in this Local Plan.

Q4: The focus of this submission is centred on the A12 Corridor and key housing sites. This firm makes representations on other employment issues in separate representations.

Q5: Yes - See comments under Q3 above. Having looked within the urban areas at all potential sites it is sensible and in accordance with the NPPF to consider releasing sites on the edge of urban areas within this corridor. It is evidenced from the housing needs data that the LPA will need to consider the long term need of the
Borough and release sustainable edge of urban area sites, as well as any longer term strategic releases.

Q6: These comments have been directed to the main urban area.

Q7: Yes - Employment comments have been made in separate representations but we would consider that the most sustainable approach is to allocate new sites close to the strategic highway network and provide a wide choice of sites.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - There are opportunities to take a more pragmatic approach to open space to ensure deliverability of some space for public use where none currently exists.

Q12: Yes - No comment.

Q13: No comment.

see attached

Q1: Yes - The Borough logically splits itself into three identified areas, which are also of different character. It is sensible to look at the main infrastructure corridors as individual areas. In particular to identify the central A12 Corridor as this includes the main settlements of Brentwood and Shenfield and which is favourable in sustainability terms.

Q2: Yes and No - There is the implied suggestion in Paragraph 2.17 that development opportunities will only be considered alongside opportunities surrounding the urban area within the Green Belt. As the main centres are the most sensible and sustainable to focus development the LPA should look at all sites including greenfield within the urban area, as well as the urban edges.

Q3: Yes - There are a number of urban edge sites in sustainable locations which will be logical rounding off or infill within the Green Belt, which will make good housing sites contributing to the relevant small local communities as well as indirectly established community facilities. In this respect this submission and link to the Thorndon Park Golf Club, which has a potential small housing site not previously submitted in the earlier SHLAA consultation.

Q4: The focus of this submission is centred on the A12 Corridor and key housing sites. This firm makes representations on other employment issues in separate
representations.

Q5: Yes - See comments under Q3 above. Having looked within the urban areas at all potential sites it is sensible and in accordance with the NPPF to consider releasing sites on the edge of urban areas within this corridor. It is evidenced from the housing needs data that the LPA will need to consider the long term need of the Borough and release sustainable edge of urban area sites, as well as any longer term strategic releases.

Q6: These comments have been directed to the main urban area.

Q7: Yes - Employment comments have been made in separate representations but we would consider that the most sustainable approach is to allocate new sites close to the strategic highway network and provide a wide choice of sites.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - There are opportunities to take a more pragmatic approach to open space to ensure deliverability of some space for public use where none currently exists.

Q12: Yes - These representations have been submitted with respect to land ownership of Thorndon Park Golf Club (TPGC). TPGC has served the community for many years and is acknowledged as one of the finest golf clubs in the South East of England. Created by the legendary Harry Colt in 1920. TPGC is the only golf club in Essex in the top 100 in England, which is a major accolade for the Club and Borough and is a good marketing point for the Club. With a thriving membership of 698 (including 50 players who are under 18 years of age). TPGC attracts visitors from overseas and throughout the UK with 3,835 visitors enjoying this remarkable parkland course in 2014.

The Members see the course as a community asset of which they are the custodians of. They are very conscious not to create a development that would detract and are adamant that any monies raised would be ploughed back into the course for the benefit of future generations. Additionally, in the short term, such funds would ensure that TPGC remains Essex's premier course.

The Club has extensive land ownership which we show identified on the O.S. base
provided, which includes important woodland areas that contributes to the overall
environmental character of this part of Brentwood.

It is highlighted that any policies in the Plan to be brought forward should seek to
encourage associated developments of such clubs alongside other similar recreation facilities i.e. Hartswood Golf Club Pay as you Play, offering a different leisure opportunity.

As self-promotion of the Borough in terms of tourism, ecology and the ability please refer to the historic importance of Thorndon Park Golf Club and it's now recognised position as one of the top golf clubs in the country is an important consideration that should be reflected in the emerging plan.

Alongside this representation we have identified a small housing site that could
contribute up to 4 dwellings. It is a logical rounding off of the Green Belt and an
extension of a small existing cul-de-sac where the infrastructure is all in place. It is highlighted that the additional benefit to community services as all the sale proceeds will be utilised in maintaining the golf course's high quality thus securing greater improvements to bring it to a higher recognised golfing standard as well as securing the maintenance of the Club's woodlands and quality golf course.

Q13: No comment.

see attached

We refer to the above consultation and respond on behalf of our client, Mr M Brown, of Jericho Priory, Church Street, Blackmore as follows:

Consultation Questions

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

Response: Yes, but with greater emphasis on expansion of villages, such as Blackmore to ensure they are fully sustainable.

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

Response: In respect of any land releases this should follow a sequential test, with urban areas first then Green Belt land in or on the edge of the Village before any major Green Belt releases.

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

Response: Mr Brown has land within the Village of Blackmore (see attached plan) which has an area suitable for small scale residential development (0.167 hectares). This site is promoted for sustainable housing and has road access and a footpath link direct into the heart of the village. The land reads as part of the village and adjoins other housing.

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?

Response: No response

Q5: Should the A12 Corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites on the edge of urban areas?

Response: No response

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

Response: Yes, as villages are tightly constrained by village development boundaries to achieve a balance of sustainable development it will be necessary to have both brownfield and greenfield releases of land within the Green Belt.

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?

Response: No response

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?

Response: No response

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

Response: No response

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

Response: No response

Q11: To what extent do you think the following is present in the landscape near where you live: Houses; Commercial buildings; Nature Reserves; Farmland; Woodland; Wasteland; Infrastructure; Leisure Facilities; other? (See Page 29)

Response: No response

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

Response: No response

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

Response: There is a need to ensure that Villages are fully sustainable and therefore infrastructure needs to be provided in appropriate locations to support this objective. This will ensure that short term housing needs can be met in Villages as natural growth rather than long term large scale development.

We trust this will assist the Council in the preparation of its Local Plan. Should you have any queries or questions please contact Tony Collins at this office.

I have attached a copy of a letter received from a neighbor with regards planning proposals in the Pilgrims Hatch area.
Firstly I would like to put forward my strong opposition to all planning on these sites.
Secondly as I have recently moved into the area I am not in possession of the official plans for these sites. I would be grateful if you could either forward this to me by email to this address or post.

see attached