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.

My submission is a view on the proposed sites for the central Mountnessing area in general.

The A12 corridor has only two access points in the Brentwood area from the M25 junction right through to Chelmsford district. The main junction is by the Shenfield roundabout and the other, for Ingatestone, is only a partial junction allowing London bound traffic a on and off slip whereas Chelmsford bound traffic only has an on slip way and Northbound Ingatestone traffic has to all go through Mountnessing from the Shenfield junction. I would suggest that the Highways Agency is asked to consider creating an off slip way to ease traffic flows created by new housing coming on stream in the next few years.

My view is that development opportunities should be given priority where all the basic needs of residents are within easy reach and infrastructure already exists. This would be where public transport is within walking distance and there are adequate pedestrian footpaths available. With this in mind the infill green belt areas within the village envelope should be favourably considered before any developments away from the village centre. Thoby Priory is an exception to this as it will deal effectively with a difficult historical brownfield use of green belt and it will create a separate community within a mile of the village centre. Sites that do not impact street scene being behind existing housing should also be favoured against those sites that change the openness and feel of the main road street scene. Building density and style is another consideration as well planned and designed developments will enhance the area and bring positive gains to the village community.

The sites put up for consideration at the Ingatestone Garden Centre and land adjacent to the recycling centre would create coalescence between Mountnessing and Ingatestone that can be seen clearly in the image below [see attached].

The orange line shows what I feel is a natural boundary for the residential zone in the village centre. The two zones marked in yellow are shown as site references 073, 095a and 095b from the draft document. These sites present a natural infill and an acceptable expansion to the village centre. On site 95b affordable dwellings can be situated to be alongside the BBC housing estate whilst the rest of the site can have housing to reflect the private homes blend found in the area. The area is well screened and lays lower than adjacent existing houses to a screened boundary with the A12. Access to site 095b, direct from Roman Road, has been secured meaning that residents have easy access to the main road and public transport. A foot/cycle pathway could be formed to lead from the site through the Water Meadows, site 095a, to Church Road as a short route to the village centre.

I would ask that my submission is carefully considered as it is a good example of strategic growth in a area that can support additional homes.

[views submitted are personal and not that of the Parish Council in terms of the respondent's position as Parish Councillor]

Specifcally within Ingatestone, Fryerning & Mountnessing Ward:
Residential:
018 Thoby Priory - Agree
042 Bell Mead - Agree
057A & B Meadowside - Object - Greenbelt
064 Everglades - Already developed
073 Adjacent to Primary School - Object- Access & Greenbelt
078 Parklands - Object - Greenbelt
078A/B/C - Object - Coalescence/Greenbelt & Effect of A12 noise ( see Planning Decisions relating to Malyons Yard, Roman Road Officer's comments.)
094 No.375 to 361 Roman Road - Agree Greenbelt infill.
095A & B Water Meadows - Object - Green Belt & Village Amenity
098 Ingleton House - Object - OK in principle but where will you move the OAPs too, there is nothing else in the village.
105 No.339 to 361 Roman Road - Agree Greenbelt infill
106 Land adjacent to Ingatestone Garden Centre - Object- as agreed at exit of Brentwood Depositories and temporary use for A12 works to be returned to Greenbelt (and regrassed over). Refer also sound pollution and Malyon's Yard officer's comments.
107 Land at Mountnessing Roundabout. - Agree "Brownfield"
128 Ingatestone Garden Centre (In Mountnessing) - Strongly object - current use is Brownfield but on a Green belt site. Coalescence.Refer also sound pollution and Malyon's Yard officer's comments.
136 Land at Church Crescent - Agree
142 Land NE Thoby Farm, St. Anne's Road - Agrre - Farm buildings
153 Land to South Fryerning Lane -Object Strongly - Greenbelt, Prescence of Public Footpath through plot, Traffic outside Infants School almost opposite is already a nightmare. Two Cottages opposite the plot have benn compulsory purchased by Highways agency for A12 widening, the same would apply to this plot. Refer also sound pollution and Malyon's Yard officer's comments.
225 Nutshell, Stock Lane - Agree
GT005 Poplar's Farm Roman Road Ingatestone? According to the OS map this lies in Margaretting Parish?
GT015 Roman Triangle - Decision already made
GT016 Willow Farm - Agree subject to S106 agreement currently under discussion.

Commercial:
079C - Agree - Old Chelmsford Borough Tip site, Highways Agency depot & Currently leased to company working on A12.
106 - Object-Land adjacent to Ingatestone Garden Centre - Object- as agreed at exit of Brentwood Depositories and temporary use for A12 works to be returned to Greenbelt (and regrassed over).
107 - Land at Mountnessing Roundabout - Agree

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.

I would like to register my objections to the proposed development of 130 houses on the site of Ingatestone Garden Centre. These are as follows:

1. Burnthouse Lane is an extremely pleasant area in which to live, illustrated by the number of people like myself who have lived here for many years, and we welcome newcomers to our lane. However, the impact this development would have would be dreadful, especially concerning the extra cars involved, not only those owned by the residents but the ever increasing number of vans delivering to the houses.

2. For many years there have been drainage and flooding problems in our immediate area and this can only be exacerbated by any major developments nearby, and of course the associated removal of trees would only add further to the problem.

3. By their very nature country people live side by side with nature and as such we are most concerned by any destruction of natural habitats. All manner of wildlife visit our gardens and one neighbour regularly sees Kingfishers in this field.

4. For 70 years at least this site has been that of a garden nursery and as such one would assume green belt land, no doubt you can clarify this for me.

If I have to mention alternative sites for development I would favour the Mountnessing scrapyard or Thoby Priory as I feel these would have less immediate impact on the lives of Mountnessing residents.

Lastly I should be most grateful for an acknowledgement of this email and would request that certainly the residents of Burnthouse Lane were kept more informed of the current situation as it was only by chance that a neighbour knew about the meeting from 'facebook' and I am sure that many are not aware that they need to raise any objections by Tuesday.

see attached

see attached.