Who will fund the development of the shops facing WHW? Some shops have closed the WHW access that used to exist because of issues with theft (see Robert Dyas and on some days Boots) - why would they reverse this situation especially with more traffic at the rear of stores?
We already have numerous un-let retail units near WHW on the Ongar Road and in the Baytree Centre. Surely this indicates there isn't a demand for more.

Sensible extension to the High Street. I understand that the development will increase the parking provision

See attached

(Policy CP5: William Hunter Way) REF 102 - The high street shops will not survive if further parking is removed. Shoppers will be driven to out of town malls where parking is provided FREE.

DM 28 Policy - These "Reservations" will encourage more "Travelers" from Ireland and Eastern Europe to the area bringing more crime and untidiness. These people do not contribute to society. They do not bring productivity. They pay no taxes or rates and the police seem unable to apply the law to their activities.

DM28:- Too many sites which will lead to rubbish creating further cost to the Council top clear. Also more crime will be brought into the areas as intimidation is usually suffered by locals. Why should the council be forced to pay rate payers' money to maintain too many sites (most of which are illegal).

Ref. 102:- It does not make any sense to deprive people of valuable car parking spaces. This would be another nail in the coffin of the High Street. People will drive to Lakeside etc. where parking is free anyway. The High Street at the moment appears to be doing reasonably well which what we all want to continue.

1.The spatial strategy is not founded on an 'adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence' base and is therefore fundamentally flawed, failing to accord with the NPPF (paragraph 158). The Plan adopts an arbitrary approach to residential development by restricting development in the Green Belt rather than positively seeking opportunities to meet the development needs of the Borough. There is no comprehensive justification for failing to meet objectively assessed needs.
2.Despite identifying that the Borough cannot meet its own housing needs, the Council has failed to seek to meet those needs by cooperating with neighbouring authorities, summarised as follows:
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's Preferred Spatial Strategy which does not seek to accommodate its full housing need.
*The City Council disagrees with Brentwood Borough Council's approach of looking to neighbouring authorities to meet unmet need.
*The City Council raises concerns regarding the deliverability of sites, such as the strategic allocations in West Horndon, identified for housing in the Preferred Options Local Plan.
*The City Council objects to the Preferred Options Local Plan being published for public consultation prior to key relevant evidence base documents being made available.

Proposed Changes to the Plan: Policy S1: Spatial Strategy should be amended to change the word 'redevelopment' in the first paragraph to 'development'. The final paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following wording:
"Amendments shall be made to the Green Belt to enable the following development:
i. Strategic Allocation at West Horndon;
ii. Allocation at land east of Bayleys Mead; and
iii. Existing developed sites in the Green Belt."

3. The Key Diagram ( figure 2.10) should be amended to show housing sites and the release of Green Belt land in accordance with representations and policies S1 and S2.