I would like to objection to the above proposed development, We may well have a thriving community, here with village hall, church, shops, play area Doctors Surgery, but I do not consider it could sustain another 50 houses in the village. Only today, I have had to ring the surgery, for my repeat prescriptions,to be told, these have to be reviewed, and the earliest appt is the 2nd of March, so I will be out of my medications before then, and there is nothing else on offer, other than trying every morning to ring at 8.30 for cancellations. There is certainly not enough parking for the shops as it stands, or the school times in the morning and afternoons, are absolutely horrendous, without adding extra people living in the village, needing doctors, schools, etc. That is without the extra cars on the roads, which is madness as it is.

I fully understand there needs to be new housing, particularly for first time buyers, as it is getting to the point, when trying to get on the property ladder, is almost out of the question in Brentwood and surrounding areas. The Brentwood Surgeries, and Dentists, are full to Brim and also you have a wait of nearly 2 weeks for an appt. Parking is horrendous, especially now with the intake of people who come from all over, following the series 'The ony way is Essex'., Our highstreet, has no decent shops, its especially full of pubs eateries, banks and building society and charity shops, There is absolutely nothing for the teenagers to do at weekends. I have lived in Brentwood all my life, bringing up my family who also live in Hutton. Back in those days we had a choice of two cinemas in the High Street, and different clubs to go to in the surrounding areas, for teenagers, now there is nothing. I understand there is also the possibility of restaurants, at the end of the High Street, on the Charles Napier Pub Site, Already there are flats being built in Crown Street, and also now the Post Office to become another restaurant, and also Clement Joycelyn premises. This is all very well, but with the financial situation for families as it is now most people cannot afford to eat out regularly anyway, I appreciate 'Travellers@ need designated areas to rest, with facilities such as showers and toilets, and I agree with this, as they would then have to pay some form of rent as such for the use of. After All, they are only a different 'race' of people, and should be given the courtesy of somewhere to stop and rest for a while, rather than having to stay on farmers fields, and the side of the roads, unlawfully. Every race, or type of person, has the right to good and fit for purpose living facilities. Our own Highstreet is a danger zone, to walk on where the bricks are lifting and moving, and that should never have happened, considering what it cost to be done. In the village of Doddinghurst where I live, there has been new equipment for the children in the play area, and according to the Gazette, it cost £80000, This is horrendous, there is not way, new play equipment, being installed, can be justified to the cost of £80000,. so I also think that more time and consideration should be taken to spending public money at exorbitant prices, when I am sure they can be completed for much less money and there is not even a bench for mums/nans/grandads, to sit on, while watching the children play.
Well rant and objection duly sent, from not just this email address, but on behalf of a lot of other villagers, who are concerned about what is to become of our lovely country village. Having seen the changes of the 60 odd years I have lived here, I have to say we are really concerned about the outcome of the localplan for the area

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 it is logical 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.

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 small local communities.

Q4: The focus of this submission is centred on the A12 Corridor and Section 6 Quality of Life and Community Infrastructure. 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.

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. However, within the Urban Areas and particularly Brentwood Town Centre there is a need to promote the best opportunities for Community Infrastructure such as educational use which also makes a direct contribution to employment.

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 - Yes, we have considered the main infrastructure issues but this is an important area as we have highlighted in particular under the 2013 Draft Local Plan Preferred Options. On that Draft Plan we put forward detailed commentary in relation to Brentwood School. We link back to those representations which highlighted the many community and employment benefits and opportunities brought to the town.

Since that time there has been further discussion with the Borough Council outlining some of the aspirations of the School and in particular its need for continued growth. What in particular has been highlighted is the School's aspirations to expand the Preparatory School i.e. to provide for greater primary education places.

It is noted in Paragraph 6.4 that the Local Authority have highlighted:

In the light of the requirement to meet full housing need, Essex County Council
have identified a significant deficit of primary school places in Brentwood Borough by 2017/18 and the remaining schools in the area will be close to capacity or slightly over capacity by 2017/18. In response to new development, new primary school(s) will be needed along with the remodelling and expansion of education and childcare facilities to meet local need.

Brentwood School in providing a first class learning facility is keen to expand and from its own statistics shows that a significant proportion of Preparatory School
pupils will want to continue with the all-round education benefits to be provided by
the main Brentwood School at secondary level. This requirement is on top of the
additional places that have been identified to meet the projected housing needs of
the Borough.

Given the importance of the School to the local economy it is highlighted that any
new plan should fully reflect these arguments and provide flexibility for the School's growth both in its policies and through amendments to the Development Plan Proposals Map. It is sensible and logical to consider the School's land ownerships to meet future development needs and to reappraise whether this town centre land fulfils a Green Belt function.

It is further highlighted that some of the School's land ownership provides potentially for greater opportunity to meet housing needs in particular for Teacher
accommodation in a Borough where expensive housing restricts the flexibility of
recruitment where Teachers have to struggle with high housing costs.

Also reference is made to Paragraph 6.8 where the Local Authority has
distinguished between education and community facilities. It is highlighted that
schools and educational facilities are able to contribute to recreation, leisure, sport
and cultural activities across the spectrum.

Recent discussions with the Borough Council have identified the major contribution
that Brentwood School provides for local community groups and activities, sharing
its wide range of facilities to the benefit of the community as a whole. Every
opportunity should be taken in the Local Plan to provide for that greater community use.

Green Infrastructure

It is noted that new development will be expected to contribute and link through to
the Borough's green infrastructure. However, there must be a balanced approach, which critically reflects the aspirations and needs of those providers and who have a greater role to play in the long term infrastructure contributions to the Borough i.e. elements of green space must not just be protected because it has a very historic designation as such. There is a presumption flowing from the NPPF and the requirements to achieve sustainable development and in particular the need to reflect the requirements of Paragraph 83 under Protecting the Green Belt Land, which for ease of reference is repeated below:

Local Planning Authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish
Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green
Belt and settlement policy. Once, established, Green Belt boundaries should
only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or
review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green
Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term,
so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period.

There is, therefore, a requirement to address these key urban sites so affected by
historic policy constraints to meet the aspirations of the Borough to provide full
community infrastructure.

We look forward to continuing on-going dialogue with the Borough Council.

Q13: No Comment

See attached.

Dear BBC Planning Policy and Mr Pickles,

I object to that proposed, within this consultation document, for the following reasons;

The Strategic Growth Options Consultation states;

1.4 The Council is required to meet local housing and employment needs, among other needs and further in the document

3 Sustainable Communities ?
The Council is required to meet projected local housing needs

and this is reiterated in Para 14 of the NPPF;

For plan-making this means that:

● local planning authorities should positively seek opportunities to meet the development needs of their area;

As stated in the 'The Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation'

2.28 The Borough faces a high level of demand for housing from people seeking to move into the area. Around 80 per cent of projected household growth between 2010 and 2033 arises from people expected to move here, mainly from elsewhere in the UK. The remainder is from natural change - an excess of births over deaths (Office for National Statistics (ONS) 2010 based sub national population projections).

5.2.1 of the Sustainability Appraisal of the Brentwood Local Plan Scoping Report May 2013 states:

Almost all of the population change in Brentwood between 2001 and 2008 was through migration from the EU and UK.

Very clearly the proposed excessive housing does not '...meet the development needs of their ( Brentwoods ) area'. The proposed housing is not for local needs and is contrary to NPPF Para 14. There are plenty of empty homes in other parts of the UK

I object to any re-designation of greenbelt, as stated by the 2005 Brentwood Local Plan, such as the so called Housing Site Options ie greenbelt land to the southeast of the borough and the so called Brentwood Enterprise Park at the A127?M25 junction. BBC should aspire to being No 1, nationally, in percentage terms of having greenbelt as opposed to being only 6th. Both these areas are greenbelt and any development ought to be accordance to the current Local Plan policies, that enhance the existing greenbelt, as per;

GB28 Landscape Enhancement
WHERE APPROPRIATE, TREE PLANTING AND HEDGE SCREENING WILL BE EXPECTED IN PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE GREEN BELT. IN ADDITION, BRENTWOOD COUNTRYSIDE MANAGEMENT SERVICE WILL CARRY OUT NEW PLANTING ON PUBLICLY OWNED LAND AND, IN CO-OPERATION WITH THE OWNER, ON PRIVATE LAND. WITHIN SPECIAL LANDSCAPE AREAS AND OTHER AREAS WHERE THE LANDSCAPE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT EMPHASIS WILL BE GIVEN TO RESTORE AND ENHANCE DAMAGED LANDSCAPE AND WILL BE A REQUIREMENT WHERE APPROPRIATE. WHEREVER POSSIBLE, NEW PLANTING SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT USING SPECIES NATIVE TO THE AREA. PROPOSALS SHOULD SAFEGUARD THE EXISTING ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF THE SITE AND INCLUDE MEASURES FOR HABITAT CREATION.

C12 Landscape Improvements
THE COUNCIL WILL, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITS COUNTRYSIDE MANAGEMENT SERVICE, SEEK TO ENCOURAGE LOCAL LAND OWNERS TO IMPLEMENT SCHEMES TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT THROUGH PLANTING, HABITAT CREATION, IMPROVED PUBLIC ACCESS, MANAGEMENT AGREEMENTS AND OTHER MEASURES, WHILST ALSO IMPLEMENTING ITS OWN PROGRAMME OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT SCHEMES THROUGHOUT BOTH THE URBAN AND RURAL AREAS OF THE BOROUGH.
WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENT AREA, AS DEFINED ON THE PROPOSALS MAP, ANY DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WILL BE EXPECTED TO CONTRIBUTE POSITIVELY TOWARDS THE RESTORATION OF ITS ORIGINAL CHARACTER.


The proposed movement of West Horndon's industrial premises to the designated greenbelt, as defined in the current 2005 Brentwood Local Plan, to the so called Brentwood Enterprise Park at the M25/A127 junction fails to consider public transport for workers that the current industrial site enjoys via a bus service and the regular train service some 50m away. This will increase local road traffic congestion and exclude potential workers that are unable to travel to the proposed new greenbelt industrial site. There is a sad and unsustainable irony that many industrial sites are re-designated for housing at the expense of greenbelt for for 'employment'/industrial sites shortly afterwards.

As for the temporary works at the A127/M25, that was set up to allow the widening of the M25, I would be grateful that you provide me proof, in response to this email objection, that this site was temporary and that there was, originally, a commitment to return it to its current greenbelt designation. I note from the Strategic Growth Options Consultation that the definition of Brownfield is given as

Brownfield (previously developed land): Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. There are some exclusions to this, such as land occupied by agricultural or forestry buildings and private residential gardens.

Clearly the M25/A127 site is still greenbelt and should remain so as opposed to becoming another jigsaw piece towards the London Borough of Brentwood.

The A127 and A12 are already congested roads much due to the destruction of countryside along their corridors. This destruction continues as evidenced at the Fortune of War Roundabout area of Basildon on the A127. Any further development will exacerbate already dire congestion and will significantly and adversely affect the quality of life of those travelling on and living close to these roads.

Defra has designated all of Brentwoods farmland as 'Good'. The proposed destruction of 'Good' Grade 3 farmland will be a significant loss of food production for a country that is unable to feed itself without importation. Wartime generation politicians that created the greenbelt did so to the point of agricultural yield obsession due to the near starvation of the United Kingdom during WW2. Some of the most fertile and productive land ie the alluvial plains along the Thames, were built on between the wars and these politicians were determined that such shortsightedness ought not happen again. Building on existing farmland is dangerous and exacerbates the inability for UK to feed itself. This, potentially, affects everyone and food security ought to be a primary concern to both planners and politicians. We live in a fragile society and world and we saw a glimpse of this frailty during the fuel strike some 15 years ago.

Any future commitment to greenbelt policy will be permanently undermined given the original 'commitments' to it made by the post-war generation politicians who clearly envisaged situations such as this.

Continuous nibbling away at something ie The Greenbelt inevitably leads to nothing.

Please register my objection to the current Brentwood Strategic Growth Options Consultation

Yours sincerely

Further to your request for comments about the Brentwood Borough local plan 2015-2030 consultation process, please find attached the following documents, which I will be posting in hard copy later today.

1. Strategic Growth Consultation comments form February 2015
2. Strategic Growth Consultation comments form October 2013
3. Covering letter October 2013
4. Email acknowledgement from Brentwood Planning department of our comments submitted in October 2013
5. Site map.

Please can I ask you to ensure that these comments are included in the consultation process, and not overlooked as previously happened in 2013. Adjoining sites are included in your Appendix 1 of the latest strategic planning document, and we would like to ensure that our site is included in the Borough's consultation process.

[see attached]

Q1: No. I do not agree with building on Green Belt area.

Q2: No.

Q3: Once again, the Green Belt area should be looked at and not built on.

Q4: The A127 is very congested so they should not build around it.

Q5: I agree on brown belt but not Green Belt.

Q6: There is no need for the amount of housing as most of the houses will go to people outside the area.

Q7: The roads are already congested so it would not be right to take away public transport.

Q8: Yes.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquillity: -

Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 1
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land : -
Infrastructure: -
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2


Q12: No. I believe they are wrong to build on Green Belt sites. Why not build a local hospital and a children's play area.

Q13: Public transport.
More local police.
Better transport.

See attached.

see attached

See attached.

see attached

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes

Q3: Yes. Green Belt land should not be considered for development.

Q4: Any site that is considered for development should be looked at carefully as once it is built on it is lost as green space forever.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Brownfield sites should be developed first. We must not keep losing greenfield sites.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes. By building retail parks away from existing town centres has a great affect on local shops and the lack of customers.

Q9: Yes.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 3

Q11: Houses: 4
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 2
Woodland: 3
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 3

Q12: Yes.

Q13: The repairing and maintenance of our existing road and keeping the Borough clean and tidy.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Seems wrong to force on villages in Green Belt that struggle to cope with road, transport, communications as it currently stands.

Q4: Seems more logical to go where the capacity for growth in one area rather than several areas thus causing less disruption.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Development of brownfield sites is preferable.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Not sure. The High Street is losing out to online retail. Are more retail sites necessary? There already seems a surplus of bars, eating establishments.

Q9: No. I think there is sufficient for the current village size.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 5
Tranquility: 5

Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 4
Farmland: 3
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 2
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: No. Blackmore seems to accommodate barely its present requirements. Transport is rubbish.

Q13: Along the A127 or the A12.

See attached document

Please see attached document

See attached.

See attached document

See attached document

See attached document

See attached.

See attached document

See attached document

I would like to make the following comments to the SGOP following attendance of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council Meeting yesterday.

We moved to Ingrave, From Havering, 2 years ago, specifically looking for a more rural and pleasant area to live the rest of our lives. We think we have found the ideal place.

The SGOP suggests that, to meet future housing requirements, land to the north-east of our villages could be used for this purpose. This is Greenfield Site which our Government has committed to safeguard. I would never accept the Brentwood 2005 Local Plan to build on Greenbelt anywhere in the borough unless there where extenuating circumstances.

I would support the use of Brownfield sites for new build as a way forward and understand that such land would accommodate 2500 homes. I then question why there is need to increase the number of homes beyond this number. It has been suggested that the reason is to house migration into the borough and not the borough's own needs. The migration policy should therefore be re-considered.

To surround two beautiful villages with urban sprawl is crass. We should protect our environment and the places we our most proud of. I would never have envisaged having to preach such a message to a Council that is elected to SERVE it's constituents.

Any housing developments of this size will impact severely on the local population, the existing infrastructure and services. Recent projects in other boroughs stand testament to the way peoples' lives have been badly effected. Do not let it happen in Brentwood.

Please let me know if I have completely miss-understood your proposals, particularly you can advise of any benefit that this will bring to our villages.

I would like to make the following comments to the SGOP following attendance of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council Meeting yesterday.

We moved to Ingrave, From Havering, 2 years ago, specifically looking for a more rural and pleasant area to live the rest of our lives. We think we have found the ideal place.

The SGOP suggests that, to meet future housing requirements, land to the north-east of our villages could be used for this purpose. This is Greenfield Site which our Government has committed to safeguard. I would never accept the Brentwood 2005 Local Plan to build on Greenbelt anywhere in the borough unless there where extenuating circumstances.

I would support the use of Brownfield sites for new build as a way forward and understand that such land would accommodate 2500 homes. I then question why there is need to increase the number of homes beyond this number. It has been suggested that the reason is to house migration into the borough and not the borough's own needs. The migration policy should therefore be re-considered.

To surround two beautiful villages with urban sprawl is crass. We should protect our environment and the places we our most proud of. I would never have envisaged having to preach such a message to a Council that is elected to SERVE it's constituents.

Any housing developments of this size will impact severely on the local population, the existing infrastructure and services. Recent projects in other boroughs stand testament to the way peoples' lives have been badly effected. Do not let it happen in Brentwood.

Please let me know if I have completely miss-understood your proposals, particularly you can advise of any benefit that this will bring to our villages.

I would like to make the following comments to the SGOP following attendance of the Extraordinary Meeting of the Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council Meeting yesterday.

We moved to Ingrave, From Havering, 2 years ago, specifically looking for a more rural and pleasant area to live the rest of our lives. We think we have found the ideal place.

The SGOP suggests that, to meet future housing requirements, land to the north-east of our villages could be used for this purpose. This is Greenfield Site which our Government has committed to safeguard. I would never accept the Brentwood 2005 Local Plan to build on Greenbelt anywhere in the borough unless there where extenuating circumstances.

I would support the use of Brownfield sites for new build as a way forward and understand that such land would accommodate 2500 homes. I then question why there is need to increase the number of homes beyond this number. It has been suggested that the reason is to house migration into the borough and not the borough's own needs. The migration policy should therefore be re-considered.

To surround two beautiful villages with urban sprawl is crass. We should protect our environment and the places we our most proud of. I would never have envisaged having to preach such a message to a Council that is elected to SERVE it's constituents.

Any housing developments of this size will impact severely on the local population, the existing infrastructure and services. Recent projects in other boroughs stand testament to the way peoples' lives have been badly effected. Do not let it happen in Brentwood.

Please let me know if I have completely miss-understood your proposals, particularly you can advise of any benefit that this will bring to our villages.

see attached

I strongly object to any green belt in Brentwood being used for house building . This must be protected at all costs as will be a precident for more use and once it's gone it will be lost to this generation and all coming generations. Ingrave and Herongate are beautiful villages and should remain so and not become suburbs of Brentwood which will spread all the way down to the A127. The A128 is a very busy road into and out of Brentwood and struggles to cope with traffic even now especially at rush hour and school time sand will become gridlocked if even more houses are built. Our health system is struggling now and more doctors, hospitals and schools will be needed if our numbers increase. Wildlife too will be threatened by increased development and infrastructure needed to support it.
I understand that it is illegal to build on green belt land unless Brentwood Council agrees but Ingrave and Herongate villagers at a recent meeting voted unanimously to reject proposals to build on green belt and will fight to keep our villages and environment.

KELVEDON HATCH VILLAGE HALL CHARITABLE TRUST
Poors' Field, School Road, Kelvedon Hatch, Brentwood, Essex
Registered Charity No.301350

FEBRUARY 2015.

BRENTWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL
STRATEGIC GROWTH OPTIONS CONSULTATION

Re : LAND BELONGING TO KELVEDON HATCH VILLAGE HALL CHARITABLE TRUST
POORS' FIELD, SCHOOL ROAD, KELVEDON HATCH, CM15 0DL

The text and maps provided for the consultation show proposed development at Kelvedon Hatch would be of small to medium scale and not require the developer/builder to provide amenities such as open spaces/recreational land. Therefore, following Planning Policy and Guidance, the developer/builder will be required to make a contribution towards the provision of these services by way of an agreement with the Planning Authority (Brentwood Borough Council) where it is appropriate.

The Trustees wish to make it clear that land belonging to Kelvedon Hatch Village Hall Charitable Trust cannot be included in any agreement by either party to that agreement without the written permission of the Trustees. Nor can Brentwood Borough Council demand or receive any benefit, monitory or otherwise, from any agreement with developers/builders in which the Charity's land has been identified in any way what so ever, whether implicitly or explicitly.

The Trustees would be grateful if Planning Officers make sure that any developer/builder does not include the Charity's land in any planning application without the written permission of the Trustees, thereby obviating the need to object to the plans and the developer having to redraw and resubmit the application.

For clarity and openness with regard to the provision of services in a locality where the developer/builder is required to enter into an agreement to make a contribution towards those services the Borough Council should make the financial agreement public and this information passed to the Parish Council in Parished areas. The monitory contribution should be detailed and include amounts contributed for the separate services, ie open/recreational space etc.

The Trustees, as a body have no opinion on the options proposed, however we have a legal duty to protect the assets of the Charity and to this end it must be reiterated that the Charitable Trust's land at School Road, Kelvedon Hatch is private land. The land is not and never has been, as suggested by some councillors, land to which the public have legal access. Please see details in the Charitable Trust's objections to the previous consultation in October 2013, a copy is attached.

C. R. North (Mrs)
Treasurer
Kelvedon Hatch Village Hall Charitable Trust.

Submitted October, 2013
CONSULTATION BRENTWOOD BOROUGH COUNCIL LOCAL PLAN PREFFERED OPTIIONS.


Re : LAND BELONGING TO KELVEDON HATCH VILLAGE HALL CHARITABLE TRUST
POORS' FIELD, SCHOOL ROAD, KELVEDON HATCH CM15 0DL

Throughout the Consultation document mention is made of "protected Open Space", but it is not clear in either the written text or the indecipherable maps provided where the Open Spaces exist or which land has "protected" status. As there is no indication in the proposed Local Plan that these areas have been reclassified since the previous Local Plan, where these spaces are identifiable on a map, the Trustees of the Kelvedon Hatch Village Hall Charitable Trust (KHVHCT) assume the protected Open Spaces remain unchanged. This being the case KHVHCT objects to Brentwood Borough Council's (BBC) identification of the Charity's property as a protected Open Space.

Kelvedon Hatch Village Hall has been in existence since 1903 and the, approximately, 5 acres of land at School Road, Kelvedon Hatch, was bought in 1952 by the Kelvedon Hatch Village Hall Management Committee with money owned by Kelvedon Hatch Village Hall, to site a "new" Village Hall. In 1964 the Village Hall Management Committee gifted the property to all the inhabitants of Kelvedon Hatch who became beneficiaries of the above Trust. The stated aim of the Trust is to provide a Village Hall for education, meetings etc; therefore, the Trust's purpose is Charitable.

Contrary to BBC's one decipherable map of Kelvedon Hatch the land belonging to KHVHCT is NOT a Playing Field nor as asserted on PMP's (2007) map a "sports field" or "pitches" and does not comply with PMP's own criteria for inclusion in its report. PMP did not contact the Trustees to ascertain the veracity of their designation. The land is rented out to various organisations in the Village and monies from the rental augment the income of the Village Hall. KHVHCT does not provide outdoor sports facilities as the Trust Deed does not make any provision for maintaining the land as recreational land, a playing field, sports pitches or "open space" so to provide these at any expense to the Charity would be a breach of trust. The Trust does not provide land for any other purpose than to site a Village Hall. The land is, and was intended to be when gifted, an investment asset providing an income for the Charity to provide and maintain a Village Hall. Neither the beneficiaries nor public have a legal right to access the land, the land is private.

The designation as an Open Space is misleading and could (has?) lead to the Charity's asset supplementing the requirement of developers to provide open or recreation space within Kelvedon Hatch (Local Authority provision does not comply with BBC's standards). Obviously, the Trustees could not legally allow such a use of the Charity's assets for a number of reasons not least being that a commercial organisation would be gaining monetary benefit from the Charity (obviously illegal) and such an arrangement would not benefit the beneficiaries. Unfortunately, Councillors and Officers have, in the recent past, also misunderstood the legal status of the land and misconstrued their powers to require the Charity to provide services, without agreement or monetary consideration, on their behalf. The designation of the land as a Protected Urban Open Space was used in an attempt to control the Charity and the way the Charity's assets (including income) were applied. This situation required the intervention of the Charity Commission to support the Trustees legal position. This situation has now been resolved, but the Trustees must do everything within their power to ensure that the misunderstanding does not persist or recur.

The Trustees have concluded that to ensure the Community/beneficiaries and Trustees retain control of this asset so that it can be used as intended when gifted, the identification of KHVHCT's land as an Open Space be removed and if necessary a more appropriate designation given in consultation with the Trustees. This will also ensure that non-beneficiaries of the Trust, i.e. the Local Authority or developers are left in no doubt as to the ownership of the land and do not benefit or attempt to benefit from the charity.

The designation of KHVHCT's land as "protected" is inappropriate and redundant. Before the whole or part of the property, including the land, can be sold or leased the Trustees must hold a ballot, the conduct of which is detailed in the Trust Deed. All the inhabitants of Kelvedon Hatch have a legal right to participate and if their decision is to sell or lease all or part of the land this decision is passed to the Official Custodian of Charities to sign the legal documents and make sure that the ballot conformed to the instructions in the Trust Deed. The reason Kelvedon Hatch has an architecturally designed Village Hall is because the Community of Kelvedon Hatch decided to sell some of the Trust's land for housing to afford a better Village Hall. The outline planning application for the housing was taken to appeal and the Inspector upheld the decision of the Community and granted the Planning Application.

It has been clearly demonstrated that the Community already has legally binding decision making powers with regard to the future of the land and can and will use this power to benefit itself in the way intended. It is difficult to see whom the protected Open Space designation benefits other than BBC and Developers, a benefit that is not intended or legal.

The inhabitants of Kelvedon Hatch have already provided and continue to provide themselves with a Village Hall and have had the foresight to provide land as an asset to help maintain it. It is difficult to see why, because the Local Authority has failed to provide adequate recreational space, BBC, by the use of planning policies, requires this Community to provide it's own Open Space/Informal Recreational land by misrepresenting an investment asset of the Kelvedon Hatch Village Hall Charitable Trust.

The Trustees believe that the designation was originally a mistake that can easily be rectified by removal of the designations as outlined below. This would also ensure that BBC or Councillors are not tempted to acquire a benefit from the Charity to which they are not entitled.

Objection
The designation of KHVHCT's land as a "protected Open Space" is inappropriate and misleading.
The designation gives BBC a controlling interest in the land, a benefit to which it is not legally entitled.
The designation restricts the Community's legal right to determine the future of the land.

Remedy
Remove the designation of KHVHCT's land as a "protected Open Space" or any other similar designation.

Objection
The identification of KHVHCT's land as an Outdoor Sports Facility providing "pitches" is misleading and not factual.

Remedy
Remove the designation and identification on all maps showing KHVHCTs land.

We must apologise for the length of this objection, but as you will realise this has been and is a complex situation with much confusion and misunderstanding. If you wish to clarify any of the above matters please contact the Trustees and we will be more than willing to meet and discus our objections or Trust and Charity Law.
Yours faithfully
J. Wright
On behalf of the Trustees.