brentwood.gov.uk

1. I am objecting to the proposed plans for a number of reasons. Primarily it appears to be ill considered, inappropriate and 'rushed'. Specifically, how can any proposal suggesting that a small village of less than 1900 people, accommodate some 1500 new houses, be viewed as 'considered'? The fact that this represents 43% of the total development for the entire borough seems to be somewhat lopsided. The fact that the proposal does not give any details as to why and how this conclusion has been reached, amplifies my misgivings.

Expansion on this scale, virtually trebling the size of West Horndon, will overwhelm existing infrastructure, which in many cases is already inadequate. Traffic through the village generated by the trading estate, is a problem. Truck speeds are unsafe to pedestrians and damage roads and buildings (e.g. vehicles moving 20' and 40' TEU's already shake buildings as they pass). Broadband, essential for many tasks today, is a complete joke, operating at a speed that must warm the heart of any physical postal service. This brings me to my second concern...

2. Infrastructure. Roads, communications, water supply/waste management, public transport and education are all seriously impacted by the proposals. To bring these up to the level capable of supporting the proposed development must be implemented before any developments proceed - according to accepted national guidance of these matters. Is the money available to fund these significant upgrading programs without placing a considerable (unsustainable/unacceptable?) burden on the public purse?


3. Flood risk. Following the (actual) floods in 2012 and that the environment agency considers West Horndon and Bulphan flood risk areas, it is surprising that the council have not carried out any assessment of this risk. To develop in such an area is both reckless and potentially dangerous. The media's continuing interest in inappropriate development schemes ignoring prevailing evidence would doubtless expose any lack of rigorous assessment in this area.

4. Loss of the Green Belt. Many residents moved to West Horndon mainly because it is a village surrounded by open fields. The proposal as it stands and the scale of the development would destroy this. I understand that demand for housing is not sufficient reason for developing the green belt. Clearly, some small-scale development may be acceptable, but wholesale development on the scale proposed (tripling the size of the village) would only be acceptable to the completely delusional.

5. In summary; I consider the proposals as they stand are completely unacceptable. Some aspects of the proposal do have merit in that they would improve matters, but only if they are done in concert with 'substantial' upgrades to existing infrastructure. The change of use of the existing trading estate into residential use, would reduce (hopefully remove?) noise and the flow of heavy vehicles through the village. Improvements to the local broadband, drainage, healthcare and education infrastructure would also be welcomed so long as they occurred before any further redevelopment.

The existing plans are not sufficiently detailed as to how they address the numerous areas of concern raised by the residents. It appears the proposal is presented as a 'fait accompli' in an effort to protect the 'nicer' areas of the borough - why else would such a disproportionate level of development be concentrated on a village so unsuited to it. If it is suitable, where is the detailed eveidence???