Support

Representation ID: 531

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

The Sisters generally support the provisions of Policy DM3, however consider that greater flexibility should be built in to reflect where site constraints prevent the expected densities from being achieved. Such constraints being, inter alia, topography, the presence of trees or ground conditions.

Accordingly the 2nd paragraph of the policy needs to be reworded in the following way: "Residential densities will be expected to be 30 dwellings per hectare net or
higher unless the special character of the surrounding area suggests that
such densities would be inappropriate or where other constraints make such
densities unachievable"

Object

Representation ID: 532

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

This representation highlights the Council's further failure to consider an existing town centre site at Eastfield Road, Brentwood which has capacity for up to 13 units, achieving a density of approximately 68 dwellings per hectare. It is concerning to The Sisters that such a site, which has been brought to the attention of the Council during a formal pre-application procedure, has been omitted, through oversight, from the Council's Allocations of Major Housing sites. It is suggested that Policy DM23 is amended, in the following way, to include the subject site.

Object

Representation ID: 533

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

The Sisters recognise the need to provide affordable housing within the Borough and welcome the Council's acknowledgement that the provision of affordable housing can impact upon the economic viability of a development. Brentwood Council has chosen to adopt a low threshold for on-site provision (5 dwellings). It is considered that the minimum threshold should be maintained at 15.

It is often physically or logistically difficult or financial disadvantageous to include affordable housing on site. A greater flexibility should be written into the policy to enable, as an alternative, the provision of a financial contribution in lieu of on-site provision.

Object

Representation ID: 534

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

We object to this policy on the basis that it is not possible to assess its full impact until a Proposals Map, has been published.

1. There is no justification as to why the Council would have a starting position of protecting (i.e. set a presumption against the development of) "other previously undeveloped land" within urban areas. Given the shortage of housing land. The Sisters would like to put forward a representation for the release of the land ( the Chase, Brentwood) from the PUOS designation. see attached.

Object

Representation ID: 1986

Received: 02/10/2013

Respondent: Ursuline Sisters

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

It is noted that the Borough Council has decided to place greater emphasis on the need to protect the Green Belt, than the need to provide for full OAN. As a result, the policy makes provision for 3,500 new dwellings against an interim OAN of 4,962 to 5,600 dwellings (331 to 373 homes a year). The fact that the Council has decided to plan for a figure well below this figure makes it all the more important that it maximises, in order of preference, the potential of:
a) existing developed sites within the urban areas;
b) suitable undeveloped sites within the urban areas;
c) suitable existing developed sites in the Green Belt; and,
d) suitable undeveloped sites in the Green Belt (i.e. sites which fulfil no, or only a limited, green belt function and which should be identified for residential development following a limited review of green belt boundaries). It is the Company‟s view that the Council will need to identify sites falling within all of the above four categories if it is to produce a "sound‟ Local Plan