Policy CP3: Strategic Sites
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 48
Received: 18/08/2013
Respondent: Miss Katherine Taylor
William Hunter Way development: what plans are there to accommodate the current cars that use this site for parking and the increased number of cars that the new development will attract? What aesthetic impact will it have on the local residents on adjacent roads?
Bay Tree Centre: This site has only recently been redeveloped. What plans do you have for the site which will greatly improve it to make any redevelopment worth while?
William Hunter Way development: what plans are there to accommodate the current cars that use this site for parking and the increased number of cars that the new development will attract? What aesthetic impact will it have on the local residents on adjacent roads?
Bay Tree Centre: This site has only recently been redeveloped. What plans do you have for the site which will greatly improve it to make any redevelopment worth while?
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 58
Received: 09/09/2013
Respondent: Mr Stephen Priddle
Sensible use of existing sites
Sensible use of existing sites
Comment
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 253
Received: 01/10/2013
Respondent: Essex County Council
The Policy identifies the key strategic sites within the proposed spatial strategy. It will be necessary to identify the potential impacts of these sites on the highway network in terms of safety and capacity, and identify necessary mitigation that satisfies both the Highways Agency and Essex County Council. All Strategic Sites will need to be supported by a Transport Assessment and Travel Plans, especially given the location of Brentwood Enterpise Park and West Horndon from Brentwood urban area
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 378
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: JTS Partnership LLP
JTS supports the strategic sites identified by the Borough Council, but we again note our concerns about the failure to provide for 'objectively assessed housing
needs'. We also highlight the fact that it may be necessary for the Council to identify further large, strategic, sites, if the Plan is to be found 'sound' and consistent with NPPF guidance.
see attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 556
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc
Agent: McGough Planning Consultants
Hansteen supports the policy, particularly the reference to West Horndon, but would suggest the reference to West Horndon be amended to refer to a residential led mixed use development.
See attached
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 650
Received: 25/09/2013
Respondent: Threadneedle Property Investments Ltd
Agent: Barton Willmore
Our client supports the reference in Policy CP3 to a new mixed use development in West Horndon, but seeks Brentwood Council's agreement to refer to this Strategic Site Allocation as a "residential-led mixed use development".
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 735
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Countryside Properties
Agent: Phase 2 Planning and Development Ltd
With regard to the proposed identification of West Horndon as a strategic growth location, this clearly involves a reappraisal of Green Belt boundaries and significant infrastructure investment, which conflicts with the constrained approach of the Plan in relation to Brentwood/Shenfield. This is not consistent with that of West Horndon. Given the need for relocation of employment uses, together with the significant lead-in times to deliver new infrastructure, the trajectory suggests that the site could deliver from 2017/18- this is questionable as the Plan is unlikely to be adopted until late 2014,at earliest.
1.The spatial strategy is not founded on an 'adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence' base and is therefore fundamentally flawed, failing to accord with the NPPF (paragraph 158). The Plan adopts an arbitrary approach to residential development by restricting development in the Green Belt rather than positively seeking opportunities to meet the development needs of the Borough. There is no comprehensive justification for failing to meet objectively assessed needs.
2.Despite identifying that the Borough cannot meet its own housing needs, the Council has failed to seek to meet those needs by cooperating with neighbouring authorities, summarised as follows:
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's Preferred Spatial Strategy which does not seek to accommodate its full housing need.
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's approach of looking to neighbouring authorities to meet unmet need.
*The City Council raises concerns regarding the deliverability of sites, such as the strategic allocations in West Horndon, identified for housing in the Preferred Options Local Plan.
*The City Council objects to the Preferred Options Local Plan being published for public consultation prior to key relevant evidence base documents being made available.
Proposed Changes to the Plan: Policy S1: Spatial Strategy should be amended to change the word 'redevelopment' in the first paragraph to 'development'. The final paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following wording:
"Amendments shall be made to the Green Belt to enable the following development:
i. Strategic Allocation at West Horndon;
ii. Allocation at land east of Bayleys Mead; and
iii. Existing developed sites in the Green Belt."
3. The Key Diagram ( figure 2.10) should be amended to show housing sites and the release of Green Belt land in accordance with representations and policies S1 and S2.
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 815
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Croudace Strategic Ltd
Agent: Barton Willmore
Three out of four of the strategic sites identified in Policy CP3 are within Brentwood. We are very concerned that there are no strategic sites identified within Shenfield, despite the Council's preferred spatial strategy as set out in Policy S1. The lack of a strategic site in Shenfield undermines the overall spatial strategy for the Borough. In our view, Officers Meadow is recognised as being in a sustainable location within easy walking distance of Shenfield and its station.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 933
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Bolson's Limited
Policy CP3 provides that West Horndon is to be a "mixed use" development site, including housing, employment, community, education, health etc. Surely Bolsons' activities need to be promoted not jeopardized by yet more uncertainty.
See attached
Object
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 1030
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Mr M Ashley
Object to Policy CP3 - Strategic Sites.
West Horndon - Mixed Use Development - housing, employment, community/education/health, open space, retail.
Object to:
Primarily - CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area & Supporting Documents
plus the following in connection with impact on West Horndon;
S2: Amount & Distribution of Residential Development
CP3: Strategic Sites 020 / 021 / 037
DM11: New Development in the Green Belt
DM17: Wildlife and Nature Conservation
DM24: Affordable Housing
DM28: Gypsy and Traveller Provision
DM35: Flood Risk
Appendix 3: Housing Trajectory
Comments (please use additional sheet if required):
The Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 and supporting documents are in sufficiently detailed with information to justify the disproportionate allocation of 43% of the borough housing requirement and 70% of Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be allocated to the village of West Horndon. These numbers will treble the current size of the village whilst decimating a large area of Green Belt. We as villagers did not receive the promised feedback from the 2011 consultation and previously discounted areas of Greenfield have now been put back into the LDP without explanation despite strong resident opposition to Green Belt development. The character of the village will be irreparably damaged by such a huge development and change our village status to a small town with none of the amenities. I am being expected to make a decision on the future of my neighbourhood with limited information which is wholly unacceptable.
The LDP fails to state how and when the local road, education, health, rail and utility infrastructure will be improved to accommodate such an aggressive development and from where the necessary funding has been secured. It would be irresponsible to proceed without detailed planning for such vital associated services. There is no further rail capacity available and the route does not provide access to our borough. The housing trajectory shows a staged construction of houses yet there is no evidence of a demand for house building in the area as potential sites have been left undeveloped in Station Road and on the Elliott's site for several years. Affordable and social housing is not ideally situated in rural areas such as West Horndon and the new development is unlikely to comprise of properties similar to the family homes that dominate the village demographic. Traffic at its peak causes congestion along Station road when trying to exit onto the already dangerous and packed A128. (numerous accidents have occurred at this junction before and after highways made changes and adding further traffic will raise the risks further )
The LDP gives no consideration to the wider implications from other developments in the vicinity, such as the DP World port and proposed A2 Thames crossing, both of which will dramatically increase traffic in the area and place further burdens on the Borough's infrastructure without the additional traffic from the proposed West Horndon development. There are only two routes into Brentwood from West Horndon (A128 / Warley) and access to the area will be gridlocked.
Green Belt development is designed to halt the sprawl of London and should only be in exceptional cases. In the evidence documents on the BBC website the projected population increase for Brentwood is primarily migratory. I see absolutely no reason why the Green Belt should be threatened by movement of people which, by its very nature, can settle on non green belt locations. The wildlife in the area will be adversely affected by the proposed development on Green Belt and I must question whether investigation has been made into protected species which inhabit the area such as Great Crested Newts as there is no mention in the LDP.
The Environmental Agency lists areas 020, 021 and 037 as being on flood plain as borne out by the most recent flooding incidents in 2012. The village suffers from flooding or near flooding on a regular basis in this area with no plans to remove the risk of further flooding once the development has been started it will only get worse. There is no evidence that this factor has been considered in the LDP and to site traveller and gypsy pitches on a flood plain is unacceptable.
I do not believe that the LDP is sound or robust enough to be considered in its present form and appears to be a rash decision to fulfil government targets. I acknowledge that progress must be made and that some development may be necessary and this should be made in smaller numbers to keep the village in its status. However, much more investigation needs to be undertaken by the council and the views of the community considered in depth before any decisions are made that will affect us in the long term.
Support
Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation
Representation ID: 3372
Received: 02/10/2013
Respondent: Westbrook Properties
Agent: CBRE Planning
Support the Baytree Centre as a strategic site. For consistency with Policy CP6, the range of acceptable uses should include leisure, though this should be an acceptable use rather than a required use, as it is not clear that there is sufficient demand from D1/D2 occupiers.
See Attachment