Support

Representation ID: 540

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Hansteen supports the LDP's overall Vision Statement and considers that it is in accordance with the NPPF, particularly the final paragraph:

"Brentwood will grow sustainably with new development directed to locations well served by local services and facilities to help further improve existing and new residents' quality of life. This will be achieved by realising opportunities to enhance the quality and character of places and provision of facilities, and minimising the negative impacts of development on people, the environment and resources."

Support

Representation ID: 541

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Our client supports all the draft LDP's Strategic Objectives. They broadly accord with the NPPF and will provide the framework to help Brentwood as a whole meet up to the challenge of changing future needs. In particular we strongly support those Strategic Objectives that facilitate the growth of West Horndon, namely SO1, 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10.

Support

Representation ID: 544

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

1.We support the LPA's preferred spatial strategy of focusing the majority of new development on land within accessible settlements, like West Horndon. This would allow sustainable previously developed sites, like the two industrial estates in West Horndon, to be redeveloped in a way that makes a positive contribution to the village (and wider borough) and is in accord with the NPPF.
2.We support the Key Diagram showing the strategic allocation at West Horndon, both parts of the West Horndon industrial estates. Hansteen and Threadneedle's estates are on previously developed land within the village boundary, adjacent to West Horndon railway station..Housing development on the estates would make a significant contribution to the total housing land supply for Brentwood, which would be broadly consistent with the NPPF, particularly paragraphs 47 and 52.
3.Hansteen considers this paragraph to be non-contentious, in conformity with the NPPF, and would go further in confirming our own support for the protection of Green Belt. We are, though, concerned that a debate about the Green Belt release at West Horndon would undermine the real benefits of redevelopment of the old industrial estates within the village, which are not within Green Belt. Rather than amend this paragraph, it may be this can be dealt with within the sites-specific policies for the Strategic Allocation or in para 2.8?
4.Hansteen strongly support this paragraph and consider this offers an opportunity to provide an example of such sites within West Horndon, in the same way as the Green Belt element in para 2.7.
5.The reference to "limited development in villages excluded from the Green Belt with a strategic allocation to be made at West Horndon" is ambiguous, suggesting West Horndon is a village to be excluded from Green Belt? The whole of Hansteen's and Threadneedle's industrial estates are within the village settlement boundary of West Horndon which has never been within the Green Belt. Clearly, the Strategic Allocation also includes land to the north of the industrial estates, outside the village settlement boundary and within Green Belt at present. Further clarification is sought to remove any ambiguity.
6.West Horndon has a range of facilities that makes it comparable to Settlement Category 2 (Village Service Centres, such as schools, some health and retail provision, jobs and excellent rail links). The redevelopment proposed at West Horndon would almost certainly result in improvements to the village's services and facilities that would make it comparable to Ingatestone. Hansteen welcomes the clarification given within Settlement Category 3 about West Horndon offering most scope for such development. We are concerned about potential ambiguity when comparing West Horndon with other Category 3 villages that the LPA considers to be comparable, such as Doddinghurst, Herongate and Ingrave, where large scale housing-led redevelopment would in all likelihood be resisted. Further clarification is sought.
7.Experience has shown that where LPAs fail to meet their objectively-assessed housing need, their Local Plans can be subjected to serious delay at the Examination. Para 14 of the NPPF is clear. We accept the general conclusions offered in the draft LDP about the difficulties in meeting Brentwood's objectively-assessed need, but until the evidence for this is available (eg the forthcoming assessments listed within the evidence), this is a matter of concern.

Support

Representation ID: 550

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

See the concerns set out for para 2.20 above. In the event that the LPA can show "significant and demonstrable harm" in meeting all Brentwood's objectively assessed need, Hansteen would support the LPA's position and welcomes a Strategic Allocation at West Horndon as a way of meeting a significant part of the housing land requirement.

Support

Representation ID: 552

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

West Horndon's retail offer is relatively poor, limited to two small top-up shops and a handful of other retail businesses. Hansteen considers that there is retailer demand for further appropriately-sized retail provision within West Horndon. This is also evident in anecdotal accounts from residents and business tenants leaving the village to fulfil their retail needs elsewhere (and not always in Brentwood). This demand will increase as the numbers of houses within the village increases. Policy S4's commitment to improving West Horndon's retail offer is welcomed.

Support

Representation ID: 553

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

We agree this fully accords with the NPPF and should be supported.

Support

Representation ID: 555

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Most of this policy is sound and overall aims are supported. However, for CP2(a) refer to comments on para 2.15. CP2(b) requires provision of employment/infrastructure development to be delivered before or at the same time as the housing. Potential costs like wider infrastructure/employment may be uneconomic to deliver until housing and other higher value uses have been delivered. Concern that CP2(b) may undermine viability of large scale redevelopment because of punitive upfront costs. Employment/infrastructure can be delivered as part of s106 or CIL. LPA should frame the policy to allow flexibility and not frontload punitive cost on development.

Support

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.

Support

Representation ID: 558

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Both industrial estates are previously developed within the village close to the station and village centre. There is local support for redevelopment for housing-led mixed use development. Preferred Options consultation suggests local opposition to development on Green Belt. Hansteen do not object to development on Green Belt, access links can be made (see attached). However, concerned the policy is "all or nothing". Clarification sought.

This does not account for declining quality of the industrial offer or wider estate impacts on the village. It doesn't acknowledge the role the estates can make to housing provision or other facilities within the village.

Object

Representation ID: 559

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Hansteen Holdings Plc

Agent: McGough Planning Consultants

Concern about prescriptive nature for 50% of homes on sites greater than 0.2ha to be 1 or 2 bed - generally flats or high density development, which may not be appropriate in master-planning for West Horndon. Local residents are concerned about development dominated by flats. Our market testing shows there is demand for a range of house types, mostly 2-3 bed. Concern that a prescriptive requirement would be detrimental to the masterplan, both in market demand and local views. Also unclear what is meant by "particular house types provided, such as bungalows, remain available in perpetuity" - seek clarification.