brentwood.gov.uk

The biggest problem that residents object to is the perceived over development, i.e. loss of existing space and feel, and whilst that is a nice to have, that's why many people choose to live in Brentwood. The central Government plan (NPPF) should not be a carte blanche for ruining towns and local areas, hence the local consultation should be listened to with a higher priority.

1. The access roads (including Parking), Schools, and Healthcare facilities are already over burdened, so they should be improved first even if it means we enjoy a better (relative) service for a while whilst building catches up). Most will argue these services have declined in the last decade(s), hence the relative anger over expansion plans.

2. So improve infrastructure ahead of development, and building companies should make less profits whilst providing housing; helping to fund these improvements.

3. The planning LDP is dependent on other agencies to provide infrastructure improvements, so these agencies (Transport (roads trains etc), Healthcare (NHS), Police, ) should have plans firmly linked to the Brentwood LDP.

4. I believe that residents are already stretched in terms of services provided and need solid assurances that they will not further deteriorate.

5. Each preferred site location needs a linked plan of how its growth or new presence will affect residents and then how it will be solved. This will avoid objections at actual planning time.

6. The so-called 'affordable housing scheme' unfortunately brings residents otherwise unable to afford to live the areas of development into that area, effectively degrading in some cases the location. Resident's work hard to attain status such as 'a nice area' so it should not be automatic that a mix should be provided. What is wrong with building a development of affordable properties only (I understand the social implications, but it works both ways).