brentwood.gov.uk

Subject: Objections to proposed draft plan for West Horndon

Dear Sirs,
I have several objections to the proposed development at West Horndon which ultimately plans to triple the size of the village.
1. Relative change in size - the proportional increase in residential dwellings for West Horndon would be huge, it represents 43% of the proposed total number of dwelling for the whole of the Borough of Brentwood. This is extremely unbalanced.

2. Lack of infrastructure to support - there appears to have been no published research on whether the current infrastructure can support such an increase in the number of dwellings.

3. Zero involvement from the local community - in the planning decisions so far, despite them being the people to be most affected by the changes. There is a severe lack of accountability for the decisions being made which will have a huge impact on the area. They appear to be being made anonymously, and without full and proper consultation.

4. Metropolitan Green Belt - national planning policy framework emphasizes the importance of the green belt and especially so the metropolitan green belt which serves to prevent the urban sprawl of London spreading out ever further to envelope the countryside of the south east. West Horndon is unique in being one of the first villages to the east of Greater London, separated from Upminster and the M25 by green fields. Any development will have a hugely negative impact on the countryside, the habitat of wildlife (for example rare birds, butterflies, water voles, bats) of which there has been no evidence of any survey into the impact of development on.

5. Village amenities - there are two tiny corner shops to support the village, a doctors surgery that is notorious for being difficult to get an appointment with. There is a village hall, and a primary school that is already full to capacity. Thats it really. What exactly is being done to address providing the amenities that a tripling in size of the village will require?

6. Roads - the roads and junctions in the area are inadequate and will not be able to cope with the significantly increased volumes of both construction traffic and eventually residential traffic. This could cause gridlock, and there have been no studies into the impact on traffic flows and pollution published of the proposed development.

7. Rail travel - with the existing C2C schedule only every other or third train stops at West Horndon. Commuting to London in rush hour you are lucky to get a seat at West Horndon, while at Upminster the carriages are completely full with people standing packed in the door areas and down the aisles. West Horndon already serves residents of surrounding villages commuting, as the packed car park is testament to.
In terms of sustainable travel within the borough, rail is of no use as there is no rail link to Brentwood. Given the dreadful bus services this leaves privately owned cars as the only viable means of travel to other villages or towns in the borough of Brentwood. Which impacts on the point above on road capacity.

8. Flood Risk - building on the green fields in the outline plan raises significant risks, it is aleady designated an area at possible flood risk, and the compounding effect of building on the land will obviously reduce the drainage capacity and thus INCREASE the potential risks of flooding for not only the new housing but the existing homes in West Horndon. There has been no study into the impact of drainage capacity, or the additional stress placed on the entire drainage and wastewater system in West Horndon.

9. Type and make up of residential dwellings - normal planning requirements dicate that new buildings should be in tune with existing make up of the village.
However even without seeing any proposed designs for the dwellings it appears from the draft plans that the make up will be at least 50% 1 and 2 bedroom flats, and urban-type ratio which is completely out of kilter with the current density and ratio of family houses in the village.

10. Traveller pitches - from previous experience most residents in Essex are under no illusions of the misery that the so-called traveller community can cause to village residents in terms of crime, general anti-social behaviour, rubbish, disruption of local schools, etc. This isn't even just opinion, statistics and reported incidents prove this.
There is an implication that there will be a traveller pitch in the vicinity of West Horndon, yet no details as to where exactly this will be. Every single person I have spoken to strongly opposes this imposition, and at the parish council meeting at the village hall I attended there were universal very strong feelings against any provision for travellers pitches within the West Horndon area.
In addition I would hazard a guess that the property developers will themselves object to having a traveller pitch anywhere near the village and their new estates, as there will be a knock on effect that will prevent them obtaining a reasonable market price for selling the new houses and flats.
This could be as extreme as making the project unviable for them. Has anyone even considered these aspects from the view of commercial property developers?

11. A personal point, I realise new housing has to be built somewhere. I have no objection in theory to new residential housing being built on the brownfield site formerly occupied by industrial estate buildings. I believe the development plan should be restricted to using the brownfield area, which will also reduce the total scale of the numbers to more feasible levels.

I look forward to hearing your response on each of the points I have raised.