Comment

Representation ID: 15398

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: Robert Mulholland & Co Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Confirm support for the allocation of a parcel of land at Chitral, Swallows Cross, Brentwood (see supporting Site Location Plan). The site would fall within criteria 2 of the approach to identifying land [Brownfield Green Belt Urban Extention]. The site is a brownfield site and is harmful to character and visual amenity in its locality.

Our client has prepared a masterplan study including an indicative layout, indicative elevations and perspectives to demonstrate an appropriate form of development that can be achieved on this site. The proposals also show the provision of some employment space for local rural businesses The site delivers a range of planning benefits including providing towards housing need, making efficient use of a brownfield site and improving visual amenity. The preliminary proposals indicate approximately 20 houses and 2 commercial units.

Comment

Representation ID: 15602

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: Robert Mulholland & Co Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

There should be no need for the policy and they should be removed from the Green Belt. The principle or basis behind this policy is not supported within the NPPF. The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. This should be a clearly defined and reasonably permanent physical feature in the landscape. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. At the very least, the Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. What is required is not a straight line but a clearly defined and readily defensible boundary.

Object

Representation ID: 15603

Received: 06/05/2016

Respondent: Robert Mulholland & Co Ltd

Agent: JTS Partnership LLP

Paragraph 89 of the NPPF is very clear and considers that limited infilling in villages is appropriate development. The relevant frontages set out above are not defined areas of a village. The Council do not have a justified case to "continue to resist strong(ly) pressure to allow new development".