West Horndon Allocation -

The City Council questions the processes and evidence base work underpinning the Strategic Allocation within West Horndon. The sites that make up the strategic allocation are two brownfield sites (Sites 20 & 21) and Green Belt land to the north of the industrial estates (Site 37). In absence of a Green Belt review, how has BBC concluded that Site 37 is the most appropriate location? Has it been tested against all reasonable alternatives?

Sites 20 and 21 -

Site 20 and part of Site 21 were identified in the 2011 SHLAA. Site 21 was not considered suitable for residential development on its own due to the nature of surrounding uses. These sites now form part of a comprehensive development, presumably as a result of discussions with the landowner. However, for both of these sites, the SHLAA identifies the need for remediation prior to development. Has this been properly investigated? Could this impact upon the deliverability?

Site 37 -

Site 37 was part of a larger site (G018) identified in the 2011 SHLAA. The development of the whole parcel of land put forward was not considered acceptable. It was considered that any development that provides for more than the local needs of West Horndon would need to be based on an agreed change in the role of West Horndon. This change has occurred as West Horndon has now been identified as a key location for growth to meet the Borough's housing needs. Site 37 is a proportion of G018. What considerations have determined the size and the extent of Site 37? The SHLAA states that contamination is unknown. Has this been investigated? The SHLAA also identifies that the costs associated with connection of the site to infrastructure and services are likely to be considerable. Could this affect the viability of the site? Furthermore, has work been undertaken to demonstrate that there will be appropriate infrastructure and services to support this allocation? Where is the infrastructure evidence to demonstrate that this site is in fact deliverable?

Remaining allocations -

Many of the sites identified are Council assets, i.e. Council-owned garages in the Borough, and are subject to further review by BBC. Assumed windfall sites also form part of BBCs housing targets. Generally, there appears to be significant uncertainty in many of BBC's allocations. This is concerning as BBC has already chosen not to meet its objectively assessed need and instead is unjustifiably, in the City Council's view, looking at neighbouring authorities to meet unmet need. There is a possibility that BBC's housing target could be further reduced because sites allocated in their Plan are not actually deliverable.

Policy DM23
Where is the provision for support services?
3500 dwellings will mean about 10,500 extra people.
There is already pressure on school places. Why sell the Training Centre in Essex way when it should revert to being a school?
How will local GPs cope? For example, there are plans for 1500 homes (about 4500 people) in West Horndon. This would require at least two GPs. Where are they to work?

I am writing to register my strong protest regarding the proposed plan to develop 1500 new homes and a travellers site in West Horndon. To date the residents of West Horndon have been given very little detail regarding this proposal which is sketchy and ill thought out in the extreme, and it is understandably of huge concern.
The village would not be able to sustain a development of this size and it would totally destroy the existing village.
Increased traffic and congestion
The access in and out of the village is very limited. The 128 towards Tilbury cannot be improved due to the railway bridge, the 128 towards Brentwood runs through Ingrave and Herongate, and heading towards Upminister you have the small railway bridge. Anyone who lives in the area is aware that the 127 towards London is a nightmare, often at standstill and during school term time the same can be said of the 128 going into Brentwood. Traffic coming from Tilbury is also very heavy. At the moment the village does have a significant problem with large lorries thundering down Station Road and Thorndon Avenue has only the one way exit off the A127.
Infrastructure
1500 new homes would mean many more families. The primary school is at full capacity and once the children move on to secondary school they have to be transferred by bus into Brentwood. We have a small doctors surgery and often have to wait now for appointments. The bus service is very poor and anyone moving into the area, unless they can go by rail will need a car to get to work. We have very few shops and amenities, in particular for young people. Again we are dependant on the car for shopping and leisure.
Green Belt
It has always been my understanding that the Green Belt needs to be protected and that both local and National government were there to ensure protection. This is to protect an increasing sprawl of development and to go ahead with this proposal will be to destroy part of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Green Belt is our legacy to future generations and should not be utilized. Once encroached upon it then becomes an easy option to build more and more. Too often these decisions are taken to people who are not directly affected by the outcome to the detriment of the residents.
Flooding
I understand that there has in the past been flooding in West Horndon and the Environment Agency's own website shows a risk of flooding to West Horndon. This must be taken into account. This is unfair to the existing residents and also to anyone looking to buy one of the new homes.

Redevelopment of the Industrial site
This would impact on people already working on the existing site as there is no guarantee that the existing companies could or would want to be relocated.
Conclusion
This development constitutes 43% of the proposed new development in Brentwood. Why this huge percentage should be inflicted on one small village is a mystery. There has been very little consultation and no information as to how this would impact on utilities such as water, waste etc, and services. This plan would treble the size of the existing village turning it into a huge sprawling estate. The sheer number of houses proposed is totally out of proportion to the size of the village. The rural character of the village would drastically change and the reason why many of us moved here and worked to pay our mortgages would be gone. This plan does not take into account the existing residents and we have had no involvement in the plans so far. This would also affect the wildlife around the village. I do not see that the existing residents would receive any benefits from this proposal and there must surely be other areas within the borough where the amenities are better. The Wash Road industrial estate is one area that springs to mind. New homes should be spaced around the Borough in areas where there is existing infrastructure to accommodate them.
There are serious misgivings regarding this proposal and we would ask the planning department to look as this neither sound or fair. The council should also look at sites that do have existing planning permission but have not be utilised. I heard a news report that Nationwide this exceeds the number of new home that currently are being proposed Nationwide.

I am writing to air my disaproval of your proposal to build 1500 houses in West Horndon, Essex.

This would negatively affect our area in these ways:

Affect wildlife in our surrounding countryside

Put pressure on our local Scools, amenitities and services

Environmentally - more flooding in Bulphan by the bridge along the fen

Ruin this small quaint Village

There are elements of the Draft Local Development Plan that I support but my concerns for West Horndon as a Professional Engineer and resident are sufficiently great that I object to the Draft LDP. In general I support the change of use of Site 020 and Site 021 but emphatically object to development of Site 037. The draft LDP is not robust in justifying development on green belt land and lacks necessary supporting evidence.

My grounds for objection are thus:
O1. The total of 1,500 new dwellings proposed would approximately triple the size of West Horndon. Maintaining the character of the village would be incompatible with such a disproportionate allocation of new homes.
O2. The development of Site 037 would be on Green Belt land which is protected to prevent urban sprawl. This is in direct conflict with the Draft LDP's Strategic Objective SO7 to "Safeguard the Green Belt". In addition, the Draft LDP has not set out exceptional circumstances that justify the loss of this land. Permitting such a development may set a precedent for future development of West Horndon and surrounding areas.

O3. Environment Agency flood maps (available online) show much of the existing village to be at risk of flooding and there is experience of it occurring recently and historically. Whilst Site 037 is predominantly outside the area shown by the EA to be at flood risk, development on the site without due consideration could increase the flood risk to the existing and proposed development. This would be by reducing the amount of permeable land for rainwater to soak away and also increasing the amount of surface water run-off to be managed. The draft proposal does not address the issue of how flood risk will be affected and mitigated.
O4. Such a marked increase in housing in West Horndon would require a robust appraisal of the current infrastructure's capacity and requirements for upgrade. An Infrastructure Delivery Plan is referred to by the Draft LDP but is noted as 'forthcoming'.
O5. Whilst West Horndon has a railway station, there are presently no plans to increase the level of service for the village. Elsewhere in the borough, Shenfield and Brentwood stations are set to benefit from improved services by the Crossrail project yet they are currently assigned a lower proportion of the housing target.
O6. Whilst I am aware of the need for additional housing in the borough, this should not be at the expense of existing residential areas and where possible it should improve the quality of living to those existing areas whilst also providing a high standard for the new dwellings. There are already other areas within the borough with inappropriate land uses amongst residential areas, such as the Wates Way Industrial Estate in Brentwood and Kestrel Park in Shenfield.

My comments of support are thus:
S1. The change of use of Site 021 and Site 020 to residential would benefit the village, as the draft LDP states. The current use is in conflict with the residential areas. As a resident of Station Road I am persistently disturbed by noise and vibration as heavy goods vehicles pass by on their way to and from the industrial estates. The vibration is particularly intrusive and can be felt throughout my house as large vehicles pass during both day and night.

There are elements of the Draft Local Development Plan that I support but my concerns for West Horndon as a Professional Engineer and resident are sufficiently great that I object to the Draft LDP. In general I support the change of use of Site 020 and Site 021 but emphatically object to development of Site 037. The draft LDP is not robust in justifying development on green belt land and lacks necessary supporting evidence.

My grounds for objection are thus:
O1. The total of 1,500 new dwellings proposed would approximately triple the size of West Horndon. Maintaining the character of the village would be incompatible with such a disproportionate allocation of new homes.
O2. The development of Site 037 would be on Green Belt land which is protected to prevent urban sprawl. This is in direct conflict with the Draft LDP's Strategic Objective SO7 to "Safeguard the Green Belt". In addition, the Draft LDP has not set out exceptional circumstances that justify the loss of this land. Permitting such a development may set a precedent for future development of West Horndon and surrounding areas.

O3. Environment Agency flood maps (available online) show much of the existing village to be at risk of flooding and there is experience of it occurring recently and historically. Whilst Site 037 is predominantly outside the area shown by the EA to be at flood risk, development on the site without due consideration could increase the flood risk to the existing and proposed development. This would be by reducing the amount of permeable land for rainwater to soak away and also increasing the amount of surface water run-off to be managed. The draft proposal does not address the issue of how flood risk will be affected and mitigated.
O4. Such a marked increase in housing in West Horndon would require a robust appraisal of the current infrastructure's capacity and requirements for upgrade. An Infrastructure Delivery Plan is referred to by the Draft LDP but is noted as 'forthcoming'.
O5. Whilst West Horndon has a railway station, there are presently no plans to increase the level of service for the village. Elsewhere in the borough, Shenfield and Brentwood stations are set to benefit from improved services by the Crossrail project yet they are currently assigned a lower proportion of the housing target.
O6. Whilst I am aware of the need for additional housing in the borough, this should not be at the expense of existing residential areas and where possible it should improve the quality of living to those existing areas whilst also providing a high standard for the new dwellings. There are already other areas within the borough with inappropriate land uses amongst residential areas, such as the Wates Way Industrial Estate in Brentwood and Kestrel Park in Shenfield.

My comments of support are thus:
S1. The change of use of Site 021 and Site 020 to residential would benefit the village, as the draft LDP states. The current use is in conflict with the residential areas. As a resident of Station Road I am persistently disturbed by noise and vibration as heavy goods vehicles pass by on their way to and from the industrial estates. The vibration is particularly intrusive and can be felt throughout my house as large vehicles pass during both day and night.

Letter

As a resident of West Horndon we are rather alarmed to learn of the proposals put forward by Brentwood Council. While we are fully aware that people have to live somewhere, and there does appear to be scope for development to the area West of Thorndon Avenue as depicted in your 'Site Allocation Maps' denoted by 'Area 037'. But I cannot see the justification for 1500 new houses in our small village, increasing the population by somewhere in the region of 3000 to 4000 or more.

What shops will they use, when all we have got is one News Agent, a small general store, two hair dressers, a little cake shop, a fireplace shop and last of all but not least a 'Massage Parlour'.

If the proposal is to build more shops and possibly a new school, where will all of these units be sited? What about the Doctors Surgery, we think we have the very best surgery in the Brentwood area, the existing surgery will be too small to cater for the proposed increase.

Also what will happen to our very dismal transport links, bus service to/from Brentwood/Lakeside/ Basildon, will all these be improved to help keep motorists out of their cars. Train service can also be improved.

The other strategic allocation sites 020 and 021, the two Industrial Estates, several matters arise here:-

1. The cost to demolish and prepare the site.
2. The number of personnel working there will lose their jobs, some from West Horndon. What will happen to them?
3. The loss of Business Rates when the units are gone.
4. Road access and egress to the new sites
5. Junction Station Road and A128 a roundabout will DEFINETLY be required, it's bad enough now.

I sincerely hope the criteria mentioned above will be given the utmost consideration so that we don't finally end up with a system that has more against it than for it.

Email
Sir,
With reference to the above proposal, I must stress my concern regarding the number of properties proposed to be built. Whilst I realise that some development will take place, I do not think it is sustainable to build the number of properties proposed.
There are a number of points I would like to put forward as follows :-
1. If the Industrial site is to be demolished for the new houses, what is going to happen to the people that currently work there, some of them from West Horndon, they probably will not be able to relocate.
2. How does the Council plan to obtain the shortfall in rates from the Industrial Site when it is gone, our rates will inevitably need to increase to make up the deficit.
3. What about the flooding risk, I sincerely hope the increased flooding risk will be fully and expertly investigated, and not just pushed aside as 'a wait and see what happens scenario', as it will then be too late. The village has been flooded several times in the past, most recently in 2012, this is a major concern, and needs to be urgently addressed, and not forgotten.
4. When the Industrial Site has gone the only thing in our favour is the reduced number of lorries speeding through the village, and the general congestion they have caused in the past.
5. We will instead have an increased number of private cars going through the village, and the intersection of Station Road and the A128 is an absolute nightmare, in the past I personally have say there for up to five or more minutes waiting for a break in the traffic when turning right to go towards Orsett. I wrote to Brentwood Council and Essex County Council many years ago about this problem, requesting a roundabout to be installed, I was told that a roundabout could not be installed because the A128 was a major A road, what nonsense was that I replied, there a number of roundabouts on the A1 and many other A roads, now there is even one at the intersection of A128 and Middleton Hall Lane. So I feel a roundabout will DEFINITELY be needed at Station Road and the A128 to avoid further accidents. Roads in the village will also need to be upgraded. As well as the pavements, these are atrocious.
6. What about our transport links, the local bus service is virtually non existent, even at present if there were more buses people would make full use of them and not use there cars, the railway service will be pushed to the limit and will be overcrowded, they are already overcrowded and with the new residents working in London and elsewhere using the railway, the situation will be worse, these most certainly will need to be improved.
7. Facilities in the village will also need to be improved, we will need better medical and educational facilities and also shops, these will not be sustainable if there is no improvement.
8. I think the proposed development of Metropolitan Green Belt Land is extremely ill-advised as this will set a dangerous precedent, if this is allowed to happen it will not be long before we will be merged with Thurrock and Greater London, do we really want this, do we really need this?

I sincerely hope the Council will take note of all the above notes and also the notes submitted by other residents and fully think out all the proposals before going ahead like a bull in a china shop and proceed Willy Nilly with what they plan irrespective of the thoughts and well being of others.

I strongly feel the proposed plan to be ill thought out and to the detriment of Brentwood (West Horndon) for the following reasons.
1. Development of Metropolitan Green Belt (Area 037) This area is a historical flood plain. (flooded as recent as Xmas 2012)
2. The end of West Horndon as a village (double existing population). The total lack of spare capacity in existing infrastructure i.e.
Health: Doctors appt on 3 day wait.
Public transport: trains standing from only during rush hours.
Schools: no secondary school (more buses required) primary school at near capacity.
Drains: Sewers backed up during wet weather no major upgrade since 1950's.
Roads: A127 & A128 very busy trunk roads, gridlock likely with more capacity.
West Horndon is a rural village in isolation from Brentwood & surrounding villages totally unrealistic proposal to double its population.
3. Area (101A) Green Belt with temporary use at present 'no public transport links (only road)
Overcrowded roads as it.
4. Disproportionate share of Brentwood Plan allotted to West Horndon area. No real proposal for cross rail legacy.
No Green Belt land should be considered until realistic plans are drawn for existing brownfield sites. No industrial site can work without good public services links (non road reliant)
These proposed plans (no substance to them) do nothing to instill confidence that the planning at Brentwood Council will do a good, well though out job on the governments/Brentwood Plan 2015-2030.

We object to the proposal of 1500 houses being built in the village of West Horndon (ref 020, 021, 037) because we moved here from London, because W Horndon was a small village, which it will cease to be of this amount of housing is allowed to ahead. It would cause a strain on the roads in and out of the village, and A127 which comes to a standstill at peak times. The trains area already at full capacity at peak times, no seats available, would need more frequent train with extra coaches. There are few shops, the doctors would not be able to cope with the demand of all the extra people. The school is at full capacity, so there would be a need for a new one. Would there be a flood risk due to building on green belt land (ref 037) where is the water supposed to go? This area is already deemed a flood risk area. I know there is a need for more housing but I don't see why 43% of the total of Brentwood Allocation has to be in the small village of West Horndon. If there has to be a compromise I would be in agreement to 500-600 houses maximum on the Industrial site. After viewing the plans it seemed reasonable but there was no space for a doctors surgery or school. The issues with the roads and trains would still remain.

If more housing has to come to West Horndon then the best place would be to the North & East of the park, making easy access to the park, also this would leave the park in the centre of the village

The residents of the new houses would have access to the park also a parking area could be used made for park uses (Football)

Then the industrial area could remain to provide employment for locals. 1,500 houses is far to many for our village, a small development around the park would improve our village and not turn it into a TOWN

I back onto the Green Belt land, this ground is not suitable for housing, due to the flooding. I was flooded in 1958 and a near thing in 1981 and Christmas 2012, it would take up the surface which is needed to drain the land, also the culverts under the railway would not cope.
This is a small village and the development would swamp it, also the 127 and surrounding roads would take the traffic.

Re: Local Plan 2015-2030
I feel this plan is VERY WRONG for the following reasons:
1. Development of existing Green Belt site (Area 037) This is a flood plain (flooded Xmas 2012).
2. Change of West Horndon Village to a Town, double its existing size. Plans have no substance to how this will be done to accommodate:
A. Health. Doctors overcrowded
B. Public Transport.Trains just cope in rush hour.
C. Schools. No secondary school, also primary school is full to capacity as it stands now.
3. Industrial Estate at West Horndon provides local employment. New industrial estate (M25 area) This road is reliant only.
4. North Brentwood has no major proposed plans, unlike West Horndon.
In short very poor plan, not thought out.

We are totally opposed to the Local Development Plan relating to West Horndon. The infrastructure would not cope with 1500 homes. The A127 & the A128 could not cope with the extra traffic that would be created. The Trains are already packed from 6.30 to 9am, standing room only. You would not let animals travel like this. No to building Metropolitan green belt land.

As one who has lived here most of my life I shall comments on just one or two points (from among many). These proposals are unsound and poorly researched; I fail to understand why West Horndon is considered suitable for development on such a massive scale - 43% of the total proposed fopr the the borough! This project would appear to have been "Planned" by appointed persons who are unfamiliar with and know nothing of the area and its history, a case of "put it all away to the farthest boundary". It will not work.

Residents here suffered badly from the floods in 1958, 1981* and other occasions since. My drive and front garden regularly flood after heavy rain and last summer back gardens along here were partly under water. We are after all on the border of Fenland; Fen lane runs south of the village.

I accept we have to take some development but, while we talk of houses, your words are 'homes' and 'dwellings' what does this suggest - blocks or flats? The industrial estate is the preferred option; to be without the nightmare of HGVs and shipping containers thundering through day and night would be fine, to be replaced by what? With today's car ownership a hundred houses could create up to 150 vehicles; multiply that by how many? Where are they all going? Surrounded by already congested main roads there is nothing to be done with the narrow roads and lanes in and around the village boundaries. Station Road is still little more that a country lane it once was despite the traffic.

The adjacent farmland is precious and essential for food production. The Green Belt (037) is sacrosanct and must be strongly safeguarded. It is clear that this plan is impractical and ill-conceived and I hope and trust that common sense will prevail in finding an acceptable outcome.

East and West Horndon Today & Yesterday - Gordon R. Everson (*p.195/6)

In your forward to the Consultancy document you state:
S1. The Councils preferred special strategy for the Borough aims to protect the Green Belt and local character and foster sustainable communities. This certainly has not happened where West Horndon is concerned, but it is in keeping with the constant neglect in almost all departments shown to this village over the last 50 years.

The plan aims to ensure development happens in the right place, where it can do the most good and least harm (to whom) with good access to facilities, such as healthcare, (non existent) parks, schools, shops and public transport. The Plan aims to ensure the historic and natural environment are protected and wherever possible enhanced (you are intending to turn this village into a Town AND DESTROY OUR COMMUNITY) In planning a New Town you need to have regard to the present villagers who all moved here because of its rural location and village atmosphere.

P.8. States that all development sites will be identified having regard to whether they:
(A) Are accessible to public transport. We have two trains per hour, which are already overcrowded, and no further room for improvement, and three busses in the morning that turn around at Brentwood and come straight back. There is only one bus back in the afternoon and that is the school run. (B) Will have no significant impact on the green Belt. This will certainly have an enormous impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt that separates us and no one else from the London urban sprawl at West Horndon.

P.9. Reason for rejection states: Development in remote locations would undermine the rural character of the Borough and increase car dependency. No thought has been given to the requirements of this small village when it is planned to treble its size. The roads that are available to us are almost inaccessible in rush hour and indeed we are often used as a rat run when overcrowding or accidents take place.

Any reduction in the Industrial Site will cause a reduction in employment in the village and no thought has been given to this. Plus, the place that it is proposed to move the site to will be returned to green Belt when no longer required by its present clients, therefore will not be available for use by West Horndon industries.

Both pavements and roads are full of potholes, some seriously. What action is the County Council going to take to this problem? Nothing in the proposals contains any change to this status.

Significant change will have to be made to the drainage system for surface water which is not absorbed by the fields will flood the village, and any surplus will go through and flood Bulphan which is in itself a flood plane. The flood alleviation scheme has been grossly neglected over the past 30 years so what hope do we have that this will change.

The Borough has seen this village as an opportunity to protect the Brentwood area and we have been thrown to the wolves.

Any hint of Travellers being allowed into this village will be met with utmost resistance and when it gets known that this is a possibility then no one will buy property down here.

We are against the plan to build 1500 homes in West Hordon.

The infreastructure could not cope. The A127 road is already at full capacity, the A128 already has many accidents because the traffic is to fast through the two villages of Herongate and Ingrave, it was not built for so much traffic. The trains from West Horndon are already at full capacity and there are no plans to make the trains longer or more frequent. It is a badly thought out plan.

NO to building on metropolitan gren belt land.

As a resident of the south side of the Arterial rd. A127 in Childerditch lane my biggest concerns to the proposals are the increased traffic to a local road system that was built in the 19th century and is now being used by large articulated lorries and heavy commercial vehicles . the lanes are very narrow and have no street lighting and therefore no speed resrictions .For this reason i believe that relocating the trading estate and building of residential properties would be a benefit to the village and surounding lanes. However any developement needs to be done in proportion with the size of the village and emphasis must be on retail and transport needs with thought on the young and old alike ie regular transport to town centre ,schools supermarket and comunity centre Furthermore It would be totally unacceptable to erode the green belt in the area This will ultimatly result in West hornden and Brentwood becoming a suburb of London with the permanent loss of out rural heritage

The following comments have been prepared in partnership with the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group, but are independent.

We welcome the recognition of continuing growth in need during the plan period, but the East of England Plan figures are almost certainly an underestimate of need. The reasons include the points recognised in their report by the Regional Strategy Panel, migration into the area, and the difficulty in assessing the need from housed Travellers, but also because numbers Gypsies and Travellers tend to not self identify because of prejudice, and because some lead are nomadic.

Based on the Brentwood Gypsy Support Group's knowledge of the local Gypsy community, there is an existing need from Travellers on unauthorised development or on temporary permissions for 36 pitches. Together with the existing 10 authorised pitches that suggests a current base need for 46 pitches.

If we then apply the 3% compound annual growth that underpinned the regional strategy and that the Council has used in their calculation it suggests a requirement for a further 30 pitches in the 17 years between 2013 and 2030, a total of 76. 30 pitches from household growth feels of the right scale, based on the needs of the children of the local Gypsy and Traveller community.

We would also advocate an additional allowance for needs from Travellers moving into the area, or from housing. A further 10 pitches would be a small addition, given Brentwood's proximity to London, and the huge difficulties there are in making additional provision within London. In total this would suggest a target for 86 pitches by 2030, a net increase in 76 permanent pitches.

This estimate will be tested by the Essex wide needs assessment being carried out by ORS. But based on our detailed knowledge of the local community, we would question an assessment which suggested a need much less than this.

Recognising that such projections are likely to under-count need, and to avoid the policy being used as a ceiling, we propose the 1st sentence of Policy DM28 should read: Provision should be made within the Borough to meet the need for at least 86 permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches to 2030.

The provision needs to be front-loaded. If we assume the plan is adopted in 2015, at that point it would require a 5 year supply of deliverable sites ie covering needs to 2020. If we add in half the 10 pitches for housed Travellers / people moving into the area, at adoption in 2015 it would require the base requirement of 46 plus 11 plus 5 pitches, a total of at least 62.

We broadly welcome the criteria for judging planning applications. Compared with those promoted by some councils, they represent a reasonable list.

We would recommend that the sites identified in sections A, B, C and D of the Brentwood Support Group's submission should be allocated for Traveller needs. Roman road Triangle should be 5, not 4 pitches. Together they would provide 36 permanent pitches. The need for provision to be front-loaded gives added importance to existing sites. Unlike pitches provided within new development, they are deliverable now.

We welcome in principle the proposed 14 pitches at West Horndon, but would question a single site of that size. Generally smaller extended family sites work better, and are preferred by the Traveller community, so we would advocate perhaps 3 smaller sites of 5 pitches each.

To accommodate more of the needs we would want to see small Traveller sites incorporated as part of other major developments. Based on an initial appraisal we have identified three of the housing sites in the plan as large enough to include and suitable for Traveller needs. We suggest that those three, Housing sites 13 Council Depot, Warley, 20 Sow & Grow Nursery, Pilgrims Hatch, and 21, Ingatestone Garden Centre should each include a 5 pitch site.

The plan needs to be clear about these requirements. We suggest that the descriptions of these three developments and the West Hordon strategic allocation under Policy DM23 are amended to make this clear. A possible form of words would be: 13 Council Depot, the Drive Warley (081) - (137 dwellings [or an amended figure reflecting the inclusion of the Traveller site], and a 5 pitch Gypsy and Traveller site) etc.

Together these proposals would accommodate 66 pitches, leaving an additional minimum 10 to be identified. This should be done through this development plan process. Given the very strong policy presumption against Traveller sites in Green Belt, it would not be appropriate to leave a balance of sites to come forward through planning applications.

The Traveller community in Brentwood all own their own sites, and would want most of the new provision provided on a private basis. They also recognise that some families cannot afford sites and need to rent. We suggest that the 6 small sites we envisage as part of developments (West Horndon and housing sites 13, 20 & 21) should include 2 or 3 small public sites. This approach is consistent with Government policy, see the 5th bullet under paragraph 4 of Planning policy for traveller sites.

I have lived in West Horndon for nearly forty years and raised my family here. It is a very pleasant place to live with a good village feel where neighbours care for each other. During the time I have lived here we have had several small developments namely the Petresfield estate, Lombard Chase, and the development of the old garage site, and the people who have moved into the houses have been incorporated into village life without changing the character of the village. The new proposals are too big and would swamp the village.
I do not object to building on the Industrial brownfield site although I do think that 500 properties is far too many for the size of the site in order to maintain the character of the village. The bulk of the present properties are detached or semi-detached houses or bungalows with large or reasonable sized gardens, any future development should have a large proportion of similar properties. However, before any building is started a great deal of infrastructure will need to be put in place.
The roads in the village are already busy and nay extra traffic will cause more problems. All the extra traffic from the new housing wishing to travel towards Southend will have to come through the village as there is no right turn onto the A127 from either Childerditch Lane or Thorndon Avenue. HAS THIS BEEN CONSIDERED?
Our station is already busy and during early morning and evenings the trains are full to capacity. HOW DO YOU EXPECT NEW VILLAGERS TO GET TO WORK?
At present it takes 3 days to get an appointment at the doctors. WILL WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THREE WEEKS IN FUTURE?
Our village school has an excellent reputation and would change its character completely should a large influx of children come into it. IF A NEW SCHOOL WAS TO BE BUILT THAT WOULD JUST DIVIDE THE NEW VILLAGERS FROM THE OLD.
Our bus service is poor and we cannot get into Brentwood after 18.16 and the last bus from Brentwood to the village leaves at 17.40. SO MUCH FOR AN EVENING OUT IN BRENTWOOD.
We are a small village and do not feel that we should take nearly half the Boroughs new housing, we don't mind taking a share but surely other villages must take their share too.
My objection to the proposals concern sections 037A/B this is Metropolitan Greenbelt and helps form a buffer between the great sprawl of outer London and the village. It is not only greenbelt it also forms a flood relief barrier for the village, areas of the village have been flooded as recently as last Christmas and should building take place on those fields we are likely to flooded more in the future. If flood protection is put in then the water will have to go somewhere and will badly effect Bulphan, I believe it is against the National Planning Policy Framework to cause a neighbouring area to be flooded. These fields to the west of Thorndon Avenue also contain a wide variety of wildlife, including great crested nests and pipestrelle bats, both of which I understand are protected species. I do not feel that the Borough has done any background checks on the land and have just viewed it as a space on a map, it is far more that that to us and until every brownfield site within the Borough is built upon, no Greenfield site should be considered and certainly NO GREENBELT land at all.

Proposed building of 1500 homes at West Horndon, Essex

I am writing this letter to register my opposition to the proposed scheme. My reasons are as follows:

1. Consultation
The scheme you have proposed has no substance. How can anyone give a reasoned response when most of the information is not available in the report? i.e. Its 'Pie in the Sky'
2. Infrastructure
a. Roads - It is obvious to anyone who visits the village that the roads are inadequate for the present needs and are badly maintained
b. Rail - The present rail service is fully used and at full capacity. I am told that there is only standing room on the trains to Fenchurch Street from 0630 hours
c. Buses - I know nothing about the bus services so I cannot give a view.
d. Health Services - At present there is an adequate Doctor and hospital presence locally. Additional population will overload the system. The aging population of West Horndon will progressively need health care and, as such, the present services will be stretched.
e. Sewage - The present sewer system can barely cope. When heavy rainfalls many gardens/houses are flooded with sewage.

3. Location
a. Village Status - The area has approximately 700 homes and the addition of another 1500 homes will, in effect, make it into a town [With no centre and no soul]
b. Metropolitan Green Belt - I find it impossible to understand why it is necessary to erode this protected area when there must be other areas available. WASN'T THE GREEN BELT CREATED TO STOP URBAN SPRAWL?
c. Flood Danger - I understand that the area of Metropolitan Green Belt designated is a 'Fail Safe' area to protect West Horndon from flooding i.e. It's a flood plain, Should remedial action be taken, one assumes that Bulpham will be flooded and not West Horndon!!!
d. Employment - It is quite likely that the new arrivals will seek employment in London, with no benefit to Brentwood.
e. Wildlife - I believe that large colonies of wildlife, birds, small animals etc will be effected by building on the Green Belt site.

4. Fairness
a. It seems a large number of homes have been allocated to West Horndon i.e. 43%
b. Based on the 'Local Plan'and the locations shown in the local paper, it would appear that not many homes are proposed north of Brentwood. WHY!!!
c. It also appears that NO HOMES are proposed in Shenfield!!! WHY!!! It will have Cross-Rail and, one assumes, a large influx of people wishing to live there.
d. Most villagers feel that West Horndon is being taken for a ride.

5. Travelers
a. The treat of having 'travellers sites' in the village has acted as a sort of blackmail. Travellers sites cannot be sites on flood plains, therefore let the council build on the industrial site and only leave flood plain sites so no travelers will come to the village. Shame on you for using this tactic!
b. NO information is being given with your proposals regarding the travelers sites. How can West Horndon feel that their future is in good hands when you are so devious?

6. Industrial Site
a. The nebulous plan to relocate the industrial site north of the A127 relies again on using a Green Belt designated area.
b. Are all the tenants from the industrial area agreeable to move?

Conclusion:
1. Should any of the proposed work be carried out it will be detrimental to the well being of the people you are supposed to represent, West Horndon residents
2. With such an un-informed, weak, and badly though out plan are you, fpr some reason, attempting to adopt. I cannot see that this has any professional input and, if it is so, political pressure must have been brought to bear. Are you doing your job or are you getting your constituents to do it for you?
3. It is generally accepted in the village that some houses will be built. The 'brownfield' site would seem to be the most suitable, but, saturation of that site will also bring problems.
4. If your previous record is anything to go by in West Horndon, the supporting infrastructure required for these houses, and to supplement the present population, will not be provided. Promise, Promise, Promise.

In the hope that you take account of my views, though I won't hold my breath

Yours truly,

The reasons for and against the development of West Horndon.
I understand that West Horndon should have its fair share of new development that 1500 homes is not acceptable when I look at the other areas around Brentwood with none or very little growth.
1. We are told one reason is because of the railway - but have any of you visited the train station at peak times - the trains are already over crowded and there is no way of having more carriages as the platform will not be long enough.
The car park is already full and there is no way or room to enlarge it.
There is no access for disabled travelers and that is no rail link to Brentwood!!
2. The roads around West Horndon are already very busy, and the road to Brentwood at busy times is trebled with motorist and is always chocker block.
The A127 is also a very busy road and we have our fare share of accidents now at the slip roads at the Half House - this is without all the extra traffic that there will be when West Horndon is enlarged.
3. As you are already aware the flood risk to West Horndon is great and building behind Thorndon Avenue would really increase this.
The Parish Council are working to get the flood alleviation scheme sorted, but I feel this going to take a very long time, and to have more housing on the green belt can only make this worse.
4. I am sure that once you have encroached on our green belt it will not be long before more housing will be going up and there being even less green belt.
5. West Horndon is a small village - which we hope to keep - we have around 1900 people and we have limited range of amenities and facilities such as shops, small primary school (no secondary school).
The doctors surgery is very busy already with up to three days to wait for an appointment.
The bus service is not great.
I have already mentioned the railway being inadequate and not suitable for a larger population.
I feel very strongly about the proposed sites and it is a definite no to site 37 but yes to some house on the industrial estate. I moved here to a small village and enjoy village life - if I had wanted to live in a town I would have done so.

The reasons for and against the development of West Horndon.
I understand that West Horndon should have its fair share of new development that 1500 homes is not acceptable when I look at the other areas around Brentwood with none or very little growth.
1. We are told one reason is because of the railway - but have any of you visited the train station at peak times - the trains are already over crowded and there is no way of having more carriages as the platform will not be long enough.
The car park is already full and there is no way or room to enlarge it.
There is no access for disabled travelers and that is no rail link to Brentwood!!
2. The roads around West Horndon are already very busy, and the road to Brentwood at busy times is trebled with motorist and is always chocker block.
The A127 is also a very busy road and we have our fare share of accidents now at the slip roads at the Half House - this is without all the extra traffic that there will be when West Horndon is enlarged.
3. As you are already aware the flood risk to West Horndon is great and building behind Thorndon Avenue would really increase this.
The Parish Council are working to get the flood alleviation scheme sorted, but I feel this going to take a very long time, and to have more housing on the green belt can only make this worse.
4. I am sure that once you have encroached on our green belt it will not be long before more housing will be going up and there being even less green belt.
5. West Horndon is a small village - which we hope to keep - we have around 1900 people and we have limited range of amenities and facilities such as shops, small primary school (no secondary school).
The doctors surgery is very busy already with up to three days to wait for an appointment.
The bus service is not great.
I have already mentioned the railway being inadequate and not suitable for a larger population.
I feel very strongly about the proposed sites and it is a definite no to site 37 but yes to some house on the industrial estate. I moved here to a small village and enjoy village life - if I had wanted to live in a town I would have done so.

020 & 021 Sites could have houses, health and communities facilities built. At East Horndon (A127) the night club site could have houses. The village is low lying. Flooding occurs across the farmers fields to Cadogan Avenue, Station Road, Thorndon Avenue and to the Church.

Railway: The trains are already full in the rush hour - only two trains stop per hour
Buses: More buses would be needed, only 3 travel to Brentwood at present but they immediately come back to West Horndon.

The Metropolitan Green Belt lung should remain.
There should be no building on farmers fields - we need to grow more food.

No Gipsies.

The aspect of the plan that I agree with is the development of areas 020 and 021, removing the trading estates and replacing them with housing & village facilities. I disagree with the development on area 037, part of the metropolitan green belt. I feel that this size of development would alter the character of the village and also present a flood risk due to the nature of the ground and lack of a comprehensive land drainage system. (Note past flooding in the village).

The aspect of the plan that I agree with is the development of areas 020 and 021, removing the trading estates and replacing them with housing & village facilities. I disagree with the development on area 037, part of the metropolitan green belt. I feel that this size of development would alter the character of the village and also present a flood risk due to the nature of the ground and lack of a comprehensive land drainage system. (Note past flooding in the village).

In response to Policy DM23 and specifically the Horndon Industrial Estate (site ref 021):
We are currently tenants on the West Horndon Industrial site and our warehouse is integral to our business employing 50+ staff. It is vital to us to have a warehouse within a 10 mile radius of our store in Upminster. The location of our current site meets our warehousing criteria and we are mindful that any move to an alternative site will incur high costs. We therefore object to the proposed development of the site.

In response to Policy CP7 (site refs 101A & 101B):
As a tenant of West Horndon Industrial Estate we are mindful of the development proposed. Should this be approved and go ahead we would be left without a warehouse to operate from. Our warehouse is key to our business and our store in Upminster is dependent on this should the West Horndon strategic allocation be approved. We express a need for a unit on this development.

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.

RE: West Horndon Local development plan 2015-2030
Proposed erection of 1,500 houses and 14 Traveler pitches

I write in connection with the above planning application. I wish to object strongly to the development of these houses in this location.

The prospect of such wide expansion in West Horndon should be considered very carefully: infilling could ruin the character of the village while estate development would overwhelm it. The protection of West Horndon's visual, historic and archaeological qualities is also supported by Policy CP9 in the Brentwood Borough Local Plan; it states that "new development should foster a sense of place and local identity, respect, and where possible enhance the character of the area". Erecting 1,500 homes and 14 traveler pitches in West Horndon would decimate it as the village we all know and love. This plan fails to improve the character of this area and therefore should not be accepted.

Pressure for the development in the village is considerable, mainly for housing city commuters, but has been successfully resisted once before in the last five years. The reason for rejecting that plan included the inadequacy of the roads to accommodate even small increases in traffic. This huge expansion would triple the amount of traffic through the village and because road widening isn't an option due to current housing and field boundaries, it would cause absolute chaos. In addition, I am concerned that this would place extra strain on our already packed trains and near full school. These two infrastructures in particular would not cope with the proposed changes.

The proposed site of the development is particularly ill considered: it is on a greenbelt site. Sites like these currently act as floodplains. With the area already prone to flooding, I fear that if these were built on, flooding in the area would be worse and more regular. Building here would both diminish the striking view into the village from Childerditch lane and be prominent from most angles within the village.

Furthermore, there is no need for this kind of open market housing in the village and there is certainly no need for traveler pitches. West Horndon already has enough large houses: the only identified need is for affordable housing for residents who work locally, as recently confirmed by your Housing Department's Housing Needs Survey. As an alternative to this proposal, I would support the construction of around 250 houses built on the Horndon industrial park as I agree to the idea of relocating this industrial park closer to the M25. It would have to be ensured that these were affordable homes for local people.

I understand that the Parish Council and the rest of the West Horndon community share these concerns.

I wish to respond to the Draft Plan on the proposed development at West Horndon as follows:

1. Proposed Size of Development
The Draft Option shows the preference of the Borough Council to be a major new development of 1500 dwellings added to the small village community of West Horndon. West Horndon is currently made up of 750 dwellings. The proposed development plans would triple the size of the village and change its character. Under the Borough Councils development plans for 2015 to 2030, the village would be asked to accept 43% of the development of the borough.

West Horndon village is mentioned in the 1086 Doomsday Book. The scale of the proposed development would inundate the existing village and would result in creating a new settlement that would threaten the current commercial and community centre of the village redundant or even create a divide in the village by creating a competing commercial area to the existing areas. The proposed plans bring no improvements for the village but are an appendage to the village.

The plan contains few details to support the allocation of a major development to a small village. For example a variety of alternative, modern methods of sustainable sewage treatment are suitable and environmentally beneficial which could be used in the less populated north of the borough, but these appear not to have been investigated. For example, near West Horndon, in St Mary's Lane is a brand new settlement of 10-12 houses with an independent waste water treatment which is commercially viable as all properties have been sold. This should be thoroughly investigated and replicated where possible in the areas discounted as alternative options 3 (semi dispersed growth) and 4 (dispersed growth) in section S1 Spatial Strategy.

National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, waste water and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education and flood risk, and its ability to meet forecast demands. This does not appear to have been implemented. For example the preferred options document states that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming". It is essential that a plan is provided addressing the following issues that currently impact upon West Horndon and with the proposed development are implemented. Currently West Horndon is several degrees cooler than the surrounding town areas and in the long winter months heating is vital, there is a very poor broadband speed in the area, both the primary school and doctors surgery are at full capacity and there is a legal obligation for local authorities to provide school places and healthcare to everyone who requests the services. West Horndon is a flood risk area. The lack of evidence is not acceptable and full studies would need to be carried out and consulted upon before any agreement to develop takes place.

As residents of West Horndon we are being asked to comment on very significant proposal, but we are currently only being provided with a fragmented draft outline of what is proposed. The proposed developed do not highlight or state any developments for the village. There is no proposal of how the scheme might seek to mitigate against any harmful impacts.

The Borough Council are attempting to run a full consultation exercise on a draft proposal which needs further research and proper evidence. It would probably be open to judicial review if passed in its present form.

2. Consultation process
The government has said that, "too often power was exercised by people who were not directly affected by the decisions they were taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them".

I feel that this plan and the consultation process have been done with a top down approach and not bottom up, it's as if the borough council are not listening to the community. I do agree that any dwellings should be developed on the green belt land identified on the plan as 037. There is no natural stopping boundary in this proposal and I believe in time this would be extended to cover all the land up to the A127.

The national guidelines state that 'Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies'. The plan presented to residents is still in its infancy and needs further development in areas such as: flooding, transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, public transport. Currently the proposal is neither robust nor comprehensive and cannot be completely considered at this time. The borough council need to carry out an extensive study of West Horndon and the other sites mentioned above to ensure its plans are affordable. The proposed plans focus on the building of houses but they do not focus on the difficult task of enhancing the community. It needs to be ensured and enforced that the developers who build the houses will not walk away leaving the problems and challenges created for the Borough Council and West Horndon residents to solve and pay for.

3. Metropolitan Green Belt
The National Planning Policy Framework states that the government attaches great importance to Green Belts and to build on them is in appropriate and harmful. The large plot of 037 is green belt and has no boundary and creep will eventually result in it being built on to the A127 boundary.

If building has to take place in West Horndon then is should be done on the brown belt areas. Suitable brown belt areas are the West Horndon Industrial Estate. There are also brown belt areas at Hutton Industrial, Waits Way industrial Estate and the site formerly housing Elliott's night club. Timmerman's nursery on the 127 was formerly green belt land and if it were to be purchased would be a site suitable for dwellings. Ingatestone have a garden centre which could be developed into residential dwellings. As previously stated there are currently sites of 10-12 newly built houses which have sold successfully and have independent sewage system. This could be replicated across the north of the borough. I do not wish to see one dwelling built on green belt land. However IF green belt land in West Horndon has be built upon then perhaps extending the town along Station Road, and extending the park behind the dwellings and opening an entrance onto Station Road, could be an option as a boundary is created. This would increase the lighting along Station Road and along with newly developed suitably lit pathways towards the park creating safe areas for jogging and walking for all age groups, which the village is currently missing. This could provide an exceptional benefit to all members of the community.

4. Cohesion with local amenities
The last census shows that West Horndon contains 750 dwellings, with around 1900 people. The proposal is for an additional 1500 dwellings of yet undetermined density. This is a major proposal which will have a momentous impact on the current residents and the proposed new residents. For example the village a limited range of shops (two corner shops, fireplace shops, a hairdressers and beauty treatment shops, one or two small cafes). The corner shops currently closes at 8pm latest with the other shops closing by 5pm. The ATM charges to withdraw money. The majority of events held in the village hall run during the day. There is no secondary school in West Horndon and there are limited unreliable bus runs to the local secondary schools. The currently public bus service is limited and also unreliable. The commuter trains to and from Fenchurch Street Station are already at full capacity and Network Rail have no plans to upgrade the station, the train frequency, the ancient cement foot bridge, the very dangerous pedestrian entrance (it has no footpath, frequently floods, and has low hanging greenery in the way of pedestrians). The availability of the doctor surgery is over stretched, the surgery does not open before 9am or after 5pm, and it closes for 2 hours at lunch! It is very difficult to get an appointment at the surgery even more so for those who work 9 to 5 out of the local area.
West Horndon primary school is at full capacity and there are limited activities for the younger population to do after school. Unlike the rail link between Shenfield and Ingatestone, the rail at West Horndon only leads out of the borough. A more reliable and affordable bus link to Brentwood is essential if the borough wishes to help ensure money is contained within the borough. If the industrial estate located at West Horndon is to be moved to the M25 site then a reliable and affordable link between the West Horndon and the new industrial estate is essential as many residents that currently work there do not need to travel as such. Shenfield is soon to be a Cross rail station (in line with the current 2015-2030 proposal) and despite being advertised as 'end of the crossrail line' there is in fact one stop to Liverpool Street and therefore makes access to Heathrow and London extremely quick! Travel between West Horndon, Billericay and Shenfield is through busy with winding country lanes that have problems throughout the winter season.

The creation of additional dwellings will need the village to have a local shop that opens later than 8pm; a free to use ATM; more additional money and resources to enable the village hall to run classes and events after the standard 9 to 5; an upgraded transport service with frequent and reliable journeys to Brentwood; the doctors surgery is currently in need of greater resources to enable it to open for longer hours and Saturdays.

It is necessary for a much more thought to be given to the proposed retail development on the brownfield site so that it enhances rather than competes or takes away from the village centre and heart.

5. Impact on the countryside and character of the village
The village is a small low density settlement and is surrounded all by open countryside. Plot 037 has been farmed for years for wheat, oil seed rape, and peas. Construction of 1,000 dwellings that green belt farmed land will reduce food available to the UK, less land for wildlife and loss of ancient hedgerows and borders. It will also destroy the open setting and rural character of the village.

6. Impact on the residents
If any dwellings are to be built on West Horndon Brown Field Sites the residents should really have a say in the mix, proportion and density of the dwellings proposed. The draft plan and road shows did not indicate what is proposed. We would like low density development. The proposed location of new shops and 'new village hall' is close to existing dwellings and noise of large lorries backing up will travel. Timings of deliveries will need to be limited and agreed. I disagree with a new village hall as proposed by the developers, two are not needed and it will give the village two centres, thus polarising it.

The volume of traffic will increase through the village including additional trucks supply to the shops and removal of the waste. Back gardens currently not over looked will be intruded and the village will lose its rural character. Development against existing housing should be at a low level. Development needs to be agreed by the residents.

7. Impact on the road and junctions in the borough
The major roads of 127 and 128 are already unable to cope with the morning and evening flows of traffic. To create an additional lane and make the dual carriage ways three lanes (effectively making them motorways) would be extremely costly and involve removing several homes. The Station Road 128 Junction would require extensive redevelopment to cope with the higher volumes of traffic. The bridge over the railway station is an s bend and narrow, which would need to be widened and become a modern 'carbuncle' on the side of the village.

The junction at the station, the current industrial estate is a dangerous blind spot. Traffic coming over the bridge cannot see traffic exiting the station nor from the estate. Traffic from the station exit is unable to see traffic coming over the bridge. Pedestrian do not have a crossing across station road and need to run the width of two lanes and two bus stops - a very wide stretch of road between the proposed site and the station. If dwelling are built on the industrial estate the crossing to the railway station and bus station (for children returning from secondary school) will be extremely dangerous. The proposed small roundabout proposed by the developers would not help to improve safety for pedestrians. It appears to be a lazy and cheap solution and needs proper investigation. The pedestrian entrance to the station is shared with the vehicles. There is no footpath available for pedestrians.

Existing junctions from 127 to the village are inadequate and vehicles need to slow down to 20mph and lower to safely go onto these roads, at the annoyance and indeed horror of other road users which, when able, can travel at 60mph.

There are no footpaths to the west of the west of the village along St Mary's Lane which lead to winding narrow roads.

8. Flood risk
The proposed plot of 037 is the flood plain for Thorndon Park. It does indeed flood and has done badly 1958, 1981 and 2012. An assessment of the drainage in the area would need to be carried out before any building is planned in West Horndon. The Environment Agency web site shows West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding. The village is situated in a low lying area with the hills of Brentwood to its north. Flood alleviation in the area will have a knock on affect to land south of West Horndon.

9. Loss of current employment
The brownfield site proposed to be used is almost 17 hectares of employment land. It will be essential that existing businesses can be relocated to nearby sites efficiently, cheaply and with benefit to the businesses so that they are not lost to other boroughs in the area. This is to ensure that existing residents are able to continue working within the area, something which should be encouraged wherever possible.

I really do care for the village I have chosen to live in and welcome good, well-integrated, robustly investigated and sustainable development. In the years ahead I will not have to explain to others, and also live with long term problems which will be left by the developers, should the current plans be put into effect without a thorough consultation and assessment.

I wish to respond to the Draft Plan on the proposed development at West Horndon as follows:

1. Proposed Size of Development
The Draft Option shows the preference of the Borough Council to be a major new development of 1500 dwellings added to the small village community of West Horndon. West Horndon is currently made up of 750 dwellings. The proposed development plans would triple the size of the village and change its character. Under the Borough Councils development plans for 2015 to 2030, the village would be asked to accept 43% of the development of the borough.

West Horndon village is mentioned in the 1086 Doomsday Book. The scale of the proposed development would inundate the existing village and would result in creating a new settlement that would threaten the current commercial and community centre of the village redundant or even create a divide in the village by creating a competing commercial area to the existing areas. The proposed plans bring no improvements for the village but are an appendage to the village.

The plan contains few details to support the allocation of a major development to a small village. For example a variety of alternative, modern methods of sustainable sewage treatment are suitable and environmentally beneficial which could be used in the less populated north of the borough, but these appear not to have been investigated. For example, near West Horndon, in St Mary's Lane is a brand new settlement of 10-12 houses with an independent waste water treatment which is commercially viable as all properties have been sold. This should be thoroughly investigated and replicated where possible in the areas discounted as alternative options 3 (semi dispersed growth) and 4 (dispersed growth) in section S1 Spatial Strategy.

National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, waste water and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education and flood risk, and its ability to meet forecast demands. This does not appear to have been implemented. For example the preferred options document states that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming". It is essential that a plan is provided addressing the following issues that currently impact upon West Horndon and with the proposed development are implemented. Currently West Horndon is several degrees cooler than the surrounding town areas and in the long winter months heating is vital, there is a very poor broadband speed in the area, both the primary school and doctors surgery are at full capacity and there is a legal obligation for local authorities to provide school places and healthcare to everyone who requests the services. West Horndon is a flood risk area. The lack of evidence is not acceptable and full studies would need to be carried out and consulted upon before any agreement to develop takes place.

As residents of West Horndon we are being asked to comment on very significant proposal, but we are currently only being provided with a fragmented draft outline of what is proposed. The proposed developed do not highlight or state any developments for the village. There is no proposal of how the scheme might seek to mitigate against any harmful impacts.

The Borough Council are attempting to run a full consultation exercise on a draft proposal which needs further research and proper evidence. It would probably be open to judicial review if passed in its present form.

2. Consultation process
The government has said that, "too often power was exercised by people who were not directly affected by the decisions they were taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them".

I feel that this plan and the consultation process have been done with a top down approach and not bottom up, it's as if the borough council are not listening to the community. I do agree that any dwellings should be developed on the green belt land identified on the plan as 037. There is no natural stopping boundary in this proposal and I believe in time this would be extended to cover all the land up to the A127.

The national guidelines state that 'Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies'. The plan presented to residents is still in its infancy and needs further development in areas such as: flooding, transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, public transport. Currently the proposal is neither robust nor comprehensive and cannot be completely considered at this time. The borough council need to carry out an extensive study of West Horndon and the other sites mentioned above to ensure its plans are affordable. The proposed plans focus on the building of houses but they do not focus on the difficult task of enhancing the community. It needs to be ensured and enforced that the developers who build the houses will not walk away leaving the problems and challenges created for the Borough Council and West Horndon residents to solve and pay for.

3. Metropolitan Green Belt
The National Planning Policy Framework states that the government attaches great importance to Green Belts and to build on them is in appropriate and harmful. The large plot of 037 is green belt and has no boundary and creep will eventually result in it being built on to the A127 boundary.

If building has to take place in West Horndon then is should be done on the brown belt areas. Suitable brown belt areas are the West Horndon Industrial Estate. There are also brown belt areas at Hutton Industrial, Waits Way industrial Estate and the site formerly housing Elliott's night club. Timmerman's nursery on the 127 was formerly green belt land and if it were to be purchased would be a site suitable for dwellings. Ingatestone have a garden centre which could be developed into residential dwellings. As previously stated there are currently sites of 10-12 newly built houses which have sold successfully and have independent sewage system. This could be replicated across the north of the borough. I do not wish to see one dwelling built on green belt land. However IF green belt land in West Horndon has be built upon then perhaps extending the town along Station Road, and extending the park behind the dwellings and opening an entrance onto Station Road, could be an option as a boundary is created. This would increase the lighting along Station Road and along with newly developed suitably lit pathways towards the park creating safe areas for jogging and walking for all age groups, which the village is currently missing. This could provide an exceptional benefit to all members of the community.

4. Cohesion with local amenities
The last census shows that West Horndon contains 750 dwellings, with around 1900 people. The proposal is for an additional 1500 dwellings of yet undetermined density. This is a major proposal which will have a momentous impact on the current residents and the proposed new residents. For example the village a limited range of shops (two corner shops, fireplace shops, a hairdressers and beauty treatment shops, one or two small cafes). The corner shops currently closes at 8pm latest with the other shops closing by 5pm. The ATM charges to withdraw money. The majority of events held in the village hall run during the day. There is no secondary school in West Horndon and there are limited unreliable bus runs to the local secondary schools. The currently public bus service is limited and also unreliable. The commuter trains to and from Fenchurch Street Station are already at full capacity and Network Rail have no plans to upgrade the station, the train frequency, the ancient cement foot bridge, the very dangerous pedestrian entrance (it has no footpath, frequently floods, and has low hanging greenery in the way of pedestrians). The availability of the doctor surgery is over stretched, the surgery does not open before 9am or after 5pm, and it closes for 2 hours at lunch! It is very difficult to get an appointment at the surgery even more so for those who work 9 to 5 out of the local area.
West Horndon primary school is at full capacity and there are limited activities for the younger population to do after school. Unlike the rail link between Shenfield and Ingatestone, the rail at West Horndon only leads out of the borough. A more reliable and affordable bus link to Brentwood is essential if the borough wishes to help ensure money is contained within the borough. If the industrial estate located at West Horndon is to be moved to the M25 site then a reliable and affordable link between the West Horndon and the new industrial estate is essential as many residents that currently work there do not need to travel as such. Shenfield is soon to be a Cross rail station (in line with the current 2015-2030 proposal) and despite being advertised as 'end of the crossrail line' there is in fact one stop to Liverpool Street and therefore makes access to Heathrow and London extremely quick! Travel between West Horndon, Billericay and Shenfield is through busy with winding country lanes that have problems throughout the winter season.

The creation of additional dwellings will need the village to have a local shop that opens later than 8pm; a free to use ATM; more additional money and resources to enable the village hall to run classes and events after the standard 9 to 5; an upgraded transport service with frequent and reliable journeys to Brentwood; the doctors surgery is currently in need of greater resources to enable it to open for longer hours and Saturdays.

It is necessary for a much more thought to be given to the proposed retail development on the brownfield site so that it enhances rather than competes or takes away from the village centre and heart.

5. Impact on the countryside and character of the village
The village is a small low density settlement and is surrounded all by open countryside. Plot 037 has been farmed for years for wheat, oil seed rape, and peas. Construction of 1,000 dwellings that green belt farmed land will reduce food available to the UK, less land for wildlife and loss of ancient hedgerows and borders. It will also destroy the open setting and rural character of the village.

6. Impact on the residents
If any dwellings are to be built on West Horndon Brown Field Sites the residents should really have a say in the mix, proportion and density of the dwellings proposed. The draft plan and road shows did not indicate what is proposed. We would like low density development. The proposed location of new shops and 'new village hall' is close to existing dwellings and noise of large lorries backing up will travel. Timings of deliveries will need to be limited and agreed. I disagree with a new village hall as proposed by the developers, two are not needed and it will give the village two centres, thus polarising it.

The volume of traffic will increase through the village including additional trucks supply to the shops and removal of the waste. Back gardens currently not over looked will be intruded and the village will lose its rural character. Development against existing housing should be at a low level. Development needs to be agreed by the residents.

7. Impact on the road and junctions in the borough
The major roads of 127 and 128 are already unable to cope with the morning and evening flows of traffic. To create an additional lane and make the dual carriage ways three lanes (effectively making them motorways) would be extremely costly and involve removing several homes. The Station Road 128 Junction would require extensive redevelopment to cope with the higher volumes of traffic. The bridge over the railway station is an s bend and narrow, which would need to be widened and become a modern 'carbuncle' on the side of the village.

The junction at the station, the current industrial estate is a dangerous blind spot. Traffic coming over the bridge cannot see traffic exiting the station nor from the estate. Traffic from the station exit is unable to see traffic coming over the bridge. Pedestrian do not have a crossing across station road and need to run the width of two lanes and two bus stops - a very wide stretch of road between the proposed site and the station. If dwelling are built on the industrial estate the crossing to the railway station and bus station (for children returning from secondary school) will be extremely dangerous. The proposed small roundabout proposed by the developers would not help to improve safety for pedestrians. It appears to be a lazy and cheap solution and needs proper investigation. The pedestrian entrance to the station is shared with the vehicles. There is no footpath available for pedestrians.

Existing junctions from 127 to the village are inadequate and vehicles need to slow down to 20mph and lower to safely go onto these roads, at the annoyance and indeed horror of other road users which, when able, can travel at 60mph.

There are no footpaths to the west of the west of the village along St Mary's Lane which lead to winding narrow roads.

8. Flood risk
The proposed plot of 037 is the flood plain for Thorndon Park. It does indeed flood and has done badly 1958, 1981 and 2012. An assessment of the drainage in the area would need to be carried out before any building is planned in West Horndon. The Environment Agency web site shows West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding. The village is situated in a low lying area with the hills of Brentwood to its north. Flood alleviation in the area will have a knock on affect to land south of West Horndon.

9. Loss of current employment
The brownfield site proposed to be used is almost 17 hectares of employment land. It will be essential that existing businesses can be relocated to nearby sites efficiently, cheaply and with benefit to the businesses so that they are not lost to other boroughs in the area. This is to ensure that existing residents are able to continue working within the area, something which should be encouraged wherever possible.

I really do care for the village I have chosen to live in and welcome good, well-integrated, robustly investigated and sustainable development. In the years ahead I will not have to explain to others, and also live with long term problems which will be left by the developers, should the current plans be put into effect without a thorough consultation and assessment.