Support

Representation ID: 912

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

-Support for the councils approach in setting a lower housing target of 3,500 as opposed to the higher figure of 4960 - 5600 as set out in the projected ONS survey.
-Supports the Councils approached in favour of a combined development approach of Option 1 (Centralised Growth) and Option 2 (Transport led) this would reduce the demand on Green Belt usage.
-Sequential approach to selection of Green Belt sites
-Brentwood Enterprise Park - alternative approach considered/ Not Brownfield land
-Brentwood Town Centre - Opportunities to enhance pubic realm
-Policy CP13; Opposed to loss of parking in Shenfield

Support

Representation ID: 939

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

Brentwood Objectively Assessed Need calculated results in figures of 4960-5600 needed homes, however, as permitted by the NPPF, the Council; have opted for a lower target of 3500, believing the higher figure would result in unmitigated damage to the general environment of the authority on transport congestion, requirement to develop in sensitive locations and a general urbanising effect.

Support

Representation ID: 953

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

Its CPRE policy that no Green Belt land should be built upon. However in Brentwoods case given other constraints its likely that this is the only option available. If building in the Geen Belt is inevitable then development should be in sustainable locations with good transport and infrastructure; this is the case with Brentwood Council policies.

West Horndon has good roads and facilities compared to other development sites.

To minimise the distruption to West Horndon residence developer traffic should be banned from Station Road and Thorndon Avenue; enhanced infrustructre should be encouraged through 106's and conditions

Comment

Representation ID: 966

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

OBJECT to Land at former M25 works site, south of A127 (101A) - Our group are opposed to this proposed development. This site is not a Brownfield site as declared by the Council. The area is visable from the M25. Other possible solution of expanding the Childerditch Industrial Park.

SUPPORT Land at Codham Hall, north of A127 (101B) - As this is already in established use and is physically grouped alongside existing farm building infrastructure our group raised no objection to this being formalised into a Enterprise Park.

Comment

Representation ID: 978

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

Object to the removal of the small garden/green open space by the the Chapel Ruins. We believe that the ensuing all paved area would exacerbate the potential 'urban hardness' of the Town Centre.

The Councils thinking is demonstrated in figure 2.4 and in effect implies the Chapel ruin garden is an impediment to improved pedestrian links between William Hunter Way and teh Baytree Centre. We believe there is no justification.

The garden provides a visual area of green tranquility.

Object

Representation ID: 979

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

We oppose to the removal of the Council owned car park at Shenfield in Hunter Avenue and Friars Avenue Lane for development with future housing of 14 homes at the first site and 12 at the second site (site ref: 130 and 129). The proposal will leave only the British Rail commuter car parks. We believe that this action has the postential to undermine the Shenfield shopping centre by deterring shoppers coming from further afield.

The council should develop is proposed 'Park and Walk' car park near Alexander Lane with housing if its essential that these 26 Homes are built

Comment

Representation ID: 980

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

Page 75 after paragraph H states: "In exceptional circumstances, where the Council considers the need for development outweighs any harm caused, the Council will require suitable compensation measures, either on-site or off-site"

We believe this policy should be modified to show that in addition, actual compensation should be paid to immediate neighbours who experience a loss of amenity or actual home value reduction, in the event the Council grant planning permission in these circumstances

Comment

Representation ID: 981

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

Page 77 paragraph 'd' states - "Safeguard the amenities of occupiers or any nearby properties by ensuring that their character and appearance is sensitive to the context and surroundings"

We believe this policy should be modified to show that implementation of this policy should be safeguarded by planning applications having to explicitly demonstrate how compliance with this policy has been achieved.

Comment

Representation ID: 982

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

Residential densities in areas of Special Character:

We believe that if buildings is unavoidable in such areas it should be done at low building densities. Brentwood has a very high proportion of Green Belt land and areas of 'Special Landscape Area' status

On page 79, we believe the 2nd paragraph beginning "Residential densities will be expected..." is insufficient in requirement and should explicitly state that where the surrounding area has special characteristics, e.g. high scenic value, or in or near a Special Landscape Area, then residential densities will not exceed a specific density per hectare

Comment

Representation ID: 985

Received: 16/09/2013

Respondent: Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) Brentwood Branch

We believe paragraph 1 is too vague and in addition does not exhibit the necessity for 'Business Viability' to be publically demonstrated in planning applications for new homes under this provision. We believe that paragraph 1 should state that where a new home is proposed a Business Plan should be submitted to the Council as part of the planning application and be available for public scrutiny.