see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

see attached

See attached document

See Attached.

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.

It has come to my attention that there is a proposed development of land at end of Peartree Lane and Lime Grove of up to 50 dwellings under the council's strategic growth plan.
Firstly I want to vent my anger that this proposed development was bought to my attention by a neighbour and not Brentwood Council, considering this has I believe been planned since 2013 without any consultation to immediate neighbours who will be considerably impacted.

I wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections that I have with regard to the proposed development of additional properties to the land at end of Peartree Lane and Lime Grove. As an immediate neighbour to the site of the proposed development, we are of the view that the proposed development will have a serious impact on our standard of living. Our specific objections are as follows:

I would like to oppose the development of this site on the below factors:-


1) I will no longer be able to let my children play out as their safety will be compromised , firstly due to the building work that these dwellings will entail along with lorries and diggers etc. and then once building have been completed and houses inhabitated , there will be faster and more traffic to get to the new development. The proposal would demonstrably harm the amenities enjoyed by local residents, in particular safe and available on-road parking , valuable green space , privacy, and the right to enjoy a quiet and safe residential environment.

2) Lime Grove is a narrow road and parking is already an issue, with all new housing developments the key is to put as many houses onto an one area as possible and thus compromising on parking allocations , this I would imagine these new dwellings cars parking leaking into Lime Grove and Peartree Lane. Insufficient parking space will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties through roadside parking on this narrow road.

3) It would also put more strain on the Doctors surgery, which at present is difficult to get an appointment when needed.

4) Doddinghurst Infants and Junior school is a wonderful little Village school, but at present my 2 children's classes have 30 children which is the maximum, where would all these new children go?

5) I would also like to know what kind of housing is being proposed - Is it private builder or social housing.

I do hope that all the objections will be taken seriously and we as residents will be kept up to date with all progress on this issue.

I'm emailing you say that I object to Brentwood's Strategic growth options Consultation.

I am fearing that this would have a huge negative on the current surroundings. The schools will not be able to deal with the amount of extra space needed and likewise all other services ie doctors, dentists etc. This will also create congestion a through what at the moment can be congested enough at peak times and obviously destroying our greenbelt.

I hugely object

I object to Brentwoods Strategic
Growth Options Consultation for the following reasons

1. The greenbelt was set
up by better planners and politicians than you so as to enable food supply and retain our wonderful countryside. I object to you and greedy land owners and developers trashing this wonderful legacy.

2. Unless you fly in by helicopter,
and dont look down, you cannot help but notice that the A127 and surrounding road network are becoming more and more congested. Building on greenbelt will further exacerbate this existing problem and seriously and adversely affect mine and other local peoples quality of life.

3. We dont need all this
housing. If your Govt didnt allow millions of newcomers into the UK in recent years there would be no demand for this housing. The Conservatives and many of their party donors clamour for growth when it is in fact artificial and a way of making money for landowners and the buy to let market at the expense of local populations.

I object to building on any greenbelt as it is designated today.

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.

Mountnessing currently suffers from water/sewage systems that are currently at capacity - any further development in the village will need to see major work on the infrastructure to ensure existing residents are not further impacted.

There is a need for smaller 1/2 bed affordable properties in Mountnessing particularly for elderly residents who wish to downsize and free up larger homes.

The village envelope should be investigated as there has recently been proposals for appropriate infill development that have been rejected due to being located 'outside of the village boundary' when it actual fact, most residents would consider the village to be a lot longer than is currently classified. Mountnessing would begin at Lower Road and end up towards the slip road on to the A12. The Council has recently turned down several sensible planning applications for schemes that would more than like add to the village's street scene.

018 Thoby Priory
This site has been earmarked for development for many years and would be welcomed by many residents. It would be most suited to a development of family homes. Thought will need to be given to affordable housing provision as the site is quite remote from the rest of Mountnessing. Also, the impact on water/sewage services in the area would need to be taken into account.
Appropriate access arrangements will need to be made as the site is off a sharp bend where traffic flows at high speeds. Also, the impact on traffic flows at peak times at the top of Thoby Lane will need to be taken into account.

073 Land adjacent to Mountnessing Primary School
This development has been vastly improved by the developers over the last year. They have come forward with a scheme of circa 18 family homes and have looked in great detail at the access arrangement off Crosby Close. This has the potential to be a well-designed development that fits in with the context of the local area.

079a/079b/079c Land adjacent to Ingatestone byass
Land in this area would not be suitable for development as it would lead to coalescence between Mountnessing and Ingatestone which should be retained as two separate villages. It is vital that greenery should be retained as a buffer between the A12 and future housing development.

094 Land between 375 and 361 Roman Road / 105 Land between 339 and 361 Roman Road
This would constitute appropriate infill development to Roman Road streetscene. As long as it is sympathetically designed to be in-keeping with other properties in the area, this would be in keeping with the ribbon of development that fronts Roman Road.

107 Mountnessing Roundabout
This site has been earmarked for development for many years. It is very pleasing to see that the developer's have moved away from what was a very oppressive-looking hotel scheme and are concentrating towards housing. Housing design should be in context with the rest of the village. Density is an issue on this site particularly as having 100+ cars accessing/exiting the development at peak time will most likely put a strain on the traffic at the roundabout.

See Attached.

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.

I only yesterday received notification by delivery of a newsletter produced by the local parish council of the above, having received no communication from Brentwood council.

Having read the paper, the following obversations should be noted

Traffic congestion along the A128 has deteriorated considerably over recent years & whilst reference is made to the A127, A12 & M25; there doesn't appear to be any reference to A128, which already seems at full capacity & therefore developments to this part of Brentwood should be limited.

Whilst reference is made to Brentwood enjoying the 6th highest total area of Green belt in the country, this is something that should be applauded & protected for future generations.

It appears that a large number of residents commute to London to work. Therefore,, brown field sites & change of use from commercial to residential should take priority over development on both agricultural & green belt.

We moved to Herongate to enjoy village life & the use of two beautiful country parks. It seems that the proposed plans will move Brentwood one step nearer to becoming part of Greater London.

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.

Thank you for giving the Highways Agency the opportunity to comment on the above consultations. We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's Strategic Road Network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport as laid down in the Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013 (The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development). I have attached a link to the circular for your convenience.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237412/dft-circular-strategic-road.pdf

In the case of Brentwood, this relates directly to the A12 and M25. As a highway authority, part of our role is to facilitate development by accommodating development led traffic on the strategic network where and when it is possible to do so. We do however need to balance this duty with the need to protect the performance of the road network for other road users. We would be concerned if any material increase in queues, delays or safety issues were to occur on these sections of the SRN as a result of development without careful consideration of mitigation measures. To this end we work actively with developers and local authorities throughout the planning process to ensure that appropriate outcomes are achieved within suitable timescales.

We have examined the consultation material and have the following comments

Strategic Growth Options Consultation

The consultation essentially outlines four spatial growth options

Centralised (Brentwood town based)
Transport corridors and Brentwood town
Semi-dispersed
Dispersed

Given our role described above we do not have any preferences in terms of growth locations, but Paragraph 16 of the above circular states that development should be promoted at locations that are or can be made sustainable (consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)). At the present time, without a transport assessment it is difficult to establish if or where there will be increased pressure on the transport network. In previous months we have consulted with you about the approach to any forthcoming transport assessment of preferred development options and are content at the present time that a forthcoming transport assessment will identify road transport impacts.

To help inform your preferred growth strategy we are more concerned with the M25 end of the SRN, particularly Junction 28 that experiences congestion queues and delays in peak periods. By the horizon year of your emerging Local Plan we would expect additional pressures on the junction through traffic growth both from Brentwood and elsewhere. M25 Junction 29 by comparison is relatively underutilised.

We note that there are sites for both housing and employment located adjacent to or in close proximity to the SRN, in particular the A12 but also the M25. Additionally a potential park and ride site has been identified between the A12 and A1023 Chelmsford Road junction. Paragraph 39 of the above circular states that new accesses onto the SRN may be identified and developed within the local Plan where it is essential for the delivery of strategic planned growth, otherwise no new accesses will normally be permitted to the high speed SRN. Any new accesses will need to conform to prevailing design standards (DMRB) and meet stringent safety requirements prior to the Agency being able to support such measures.

Note that for your Local plan we would only examine the transport impact of development without planning consent as opposed to all Local Plan development.

Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation

We note the location of Dunton Garden Suburb in relation to the SRN, in particular the M25 Junction 29. Given that the site would effectively form a suburb of Basildon there is the potential for transport synergy and opportunities to develop a sustainable community alongside an existing and expanded employment base with access to public transport (road and rail) and the opportunity to manage demand with the provision of further local services. We would stress the need to integrate and strengthen the transport links with the adjoining urban area and to consider measures required to manage down private motorised transport of future occupants should the site be included within the emerging Local Plan.

Please also see comments above in relation to the Strategic Growth Options Consultation that equally apply to the Dunton site and consultation.

I hope that you find these comments useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information

Thank you for giving the Highways Agency the opportunity to comment on the above consultations. We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's Strategic Road Network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport as laid down in the Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013 (The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development). I have attached a link to the circular for your convenience.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237412/dft-circular-strategic-road.pdf

In the case of Brentwood, this relates directly to the A12 and M25. As a highway authority, part of our role is to facilitate development by accommodating development led traffic on the strategic network where and when it is possible to do so. We do however need to balance this duty with the need to protect the performance of the road network for other road users. We would be concerned if any material increase in queues, delays or safety issues were to occur on these sections of the SRN as a result of development without careful consideration of mitigation measures. To this end we work actively with developers and local authorities throughout the planning process to ensure that appropriate outcomes are achieved within suitable timescales.

We have examined the consultation material and have the following comments

Strategic Growth Options Consultation

The consultation essentially outlines four spatial growth options

Centralised (Brentwood town based)
Transport corridors and Brentwood town
Semi-dispersed
Dispersed

Given our role described above we do not have any preferences in terms of growth locations, but Paragraph 16 of the above circular states that development should be promoted at locations that are or can be made sustainable (consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)). At the present time, without a transport assessment it is difficult to establish if or where there will be increased pressure on the transport network. In previous months we have consulted with you about the approach to any forthcoming transport assessment of preferred development options and are content at the present time that a forthcoming transport assessment will identify road transport impacts.

To help inform your preferred growth strategy we are more concerned with the M25 end of the SRN, particularly Junction 28 that experiences congestion queues and delays in peak periods. By the horizon year of your emerging Local Plan we would expect additional pressures on the junction through traffic growth both from Brentwood and elsewhere. M25 Junction 29 by comparison is relatively underutilised.

We note that there are sites for both housing and employment located adjacent to or in close proximity to the SRN, in particular the A12 but also the M25. Additionally a potential park and ride site has been identified between the A12 and A1023 Chelmsford Road junction. Paragraph 39 of the above circular states that new accesses onto the SRN may be identified and developed within the local Plan where it is essential for the delivery of strategic planned growth, otherwise no new accesses will normally be permitted to the high speed SRN. Any new accesses will need to conform to prevailing design standards (DMRB) and meet stringent safety requirements prior to the Agency being able to support such measures.

Note that for your Local plan we would only examine the transport impact of development without planning consent as opposed to all Local Plan development.

Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation

We note the location of Dunton Garden Suburb in relation to the SRN, in particular the M25 Junction 29. Given that the site would effectively form a suburb of Basildon there is the potential for transport synergy and opportunities to develop a sustainable community alongside an existing and expanded employment base with access to public transport (road and rail) and the opportunity to manage demand with the provision of further local services. We would stress the need to integrate and strengthen the transport links with the adjoining urban area and to consider measures required to manage down private motorised transport of future occupants should the site be included within the emerging Local Plan.

Please also see comments above in relation to the Strategic Growth Options Consultation that equally apply to the Dunton site and consultation.

I hope that you find these comments useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information

see attached

see attached

see attached