Object

Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options for Consultation

Representation ID: 1994

Received: 01/10/2013

Respondent: Mr Brian Worth

Representation Summary:

It is difficult to see how the extra development can be supported when the major infrastructure changes that are required have not been established first.
- Known infrastructure problems such as flooding, drainage, sewerage, road/rail capacity.
- Destroy its rural setting and character, eroding the community spirit and significantly reducing house prices as the reasons for West Horndon.
- Threat to the green belt
- Very few shops, even less that are actually open, a primary school which is at full capacity now and no secondary school.
- Limited healthcare.

Full text:

General Development Concerns
The only definite thing about Policy CP4 "West Horndon Opportunity Area" is a proposal for 1500 houses. The plans provide no further details other than outlines of the 3 target areas - sites 020, 021, and 037.

Policy DM28 "Gypsy and Traveller Provision" West Horndon mentions a Travellers' Site at West Horndon but no indication as to where.

In these circumstances it is difficult to make specific comments on such a major proposal. For these reasons and the reasons below I am rejecting both Policies CP4 and DM28.

Infrastructure
The plan has no infrastructure change details. Just a general statement to the effect that necessary infrastructure changes can be made.

The existing infrastructure serving West Horndon is insufficient at this present time to cope with the existing village needs. It is difficult to see how the extra development can be supported when the major infrastructure changes that are required have not been established first. Specifics of the changes to be made, and the how, when, and where, and individual organisations responsible for providing those changes need to be presented alongside the projections of things like 50 houses per year in the rollout plan in order to assess how the figure of 1500 houses was arrived at and how such expansion can be supported.

Unless there is a legal obligation to provide the infrastructure before or during the build then all that will happen is 50 houses per year will be built and nothing will be done until something breaks - if then. This has been my experience in this and other areas.

It is unclear as to why West Horndon is considered to be the target for such large development with its known infrastructure problems such as flooding, drainage, sewerage, road/rail capacity etc., yet areas in the north of the borough with those same issues are not. The statement that necessary infrastructure changes can be made could equally apply to those areas north of the borough as well as West Horndon.

Scale of the Proposed Expansion
West Horndon is currently a small rural village of low density development surrounded by open spaces. In the core of the village there are around 500 houses, with more in outlying areas, making it a well sought after location.

Adding 1500 homes to the village core would nearly quadruple its size, and treble the size of the parish. It would effectively turn West Horndon into a town, destroying its rural setting and character, eroding the community spirit and significantly reducing house prices as the reasons for West Horndon being a sought after location would no longer exist.

Green Belt
A large proportion of the 1500 houses are proposed to be built on site 037, which is Green Belt land, indeed Metropolitan Green Belt land. National planning policy indicates that such land should be permanently open, and housing development is considered an inappropriate use for such land except in exceptional circumstances. The Brentwood Borough Local Plan does not detail what the exceptional circumstances are to justify releasing Metropolitan Green Belt land.
If those houses get built on such land, developers will have a powerful case to build more homes on adjacent green belt land once the precedent is set. Once this starts to happen, the boundaries of West Horndon will be forgotten and its periphery will become a sprawl of housing out of all proportion to the village centre.

The Brentwood Borough Local Plan not only seems to conflict with National Planning Policy on Green Belt retention but actively seems to encourage more than just this "one-off" release of Green Belt with the inclusion of the statement on the first page of Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area which begins "West Horndon could give rise to further capacity..."

Mixed Use Development
Policy CP4 mentions the mixed use of the land for housing, employment, retail, community, open space, education and health purposes in various different sections of the policy. It also mentions encouraging local employment to reduce travel, particularly by car.

However, the closure of most of the industrial units in the brownfield sites of 020 and 021 on the plan to make way for the homes, and the relocation of the businesses to the former M25 works site 010A, will slash local employment opportunities within walking distance of the village and create the need for additional traffic (even if the "Green route", whatever that is supposed to be, does ever materialise) as there is no rail link to site 010A and the site is definitely not within walking distance of the village.

There is no mention in the plan for any other uses of the land in sites 020, 021, and 037, except for housing.

Gypsy and Traveller Provision
The initial estimated 14 traveller pitches is out of proportion to the much smaller allocations elsewhere. West Horndon would be taking nearly half of the total pitch requirements.

No indication has been given as to where the 14 pitches are to be located. As National Planning Policy states that the use of Green Belt for traveller/gipsy sites is classes as inappropriate development, that leaves just the brownfield sites of 020 and 021.

A rail link in the form of West Horndon station has been one of the reasons given for attracting potential development. But in the case of travellers and gypsies this is irrelevant due to the nature of the people and their work.

Nearby access to facilities such as primary schools and secondary schools is another requirement for such a site. West Horndon has a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has very few shops, even less that are actually open, a primary school which is at full capacity now and no secondary school.

Healthcare is another requirement. The limited hours of opening and service provided by the surgery in the village cannot meet the needs of the existing residents now.

The village is remote from the larger centres of Brentwood, Basildon and Upminster.

Such a site would harm the character and appearance of the village and result in an unacceptable visual impact. House prices in the area would plummet. The events of Dale Farm have proved how a supposed limit of a legal number of pitches can mushroom out of control. Even today on Oak Farm, the remaining legal part of the Dale Farm settlement, a large number of travellers are cluttering up the area far in excess of the legal permitted maximum and have been doing so since the Dale Farm eviction.

Given the above, the travellers with their larger than average families, could soon start overwhelming such a small rural village as West Horndon.

The above points illustrate why West Horndon is not a suitable location for a travellers' site.