brentwood.gov.uk

First of all, in my opinion, it is totally wrong to be developing anywhere in South Essex, as the area is already over populated, our roads are often at gridlock with the existing amount of traffic that uses them. There is so much open space in other parts of the UK, that is where the Government shoUld be pushing for development.

That said, we need to deal with the matter in hand and based on the limited information that has been made available, I submit my OBJECTION to the proposed development at West Horndon (CP4)

Your first justification for this development states that West Horndon has good roads and rail access, this is just not true. Both the A127 and the A128 are not currently adequate to cope with the existing levels of traffic. The proposed development would bring gridlock to the area with a knock on effect to traffic travelling past the village to and from places such as Basildon and Southend. In addition, the three access/exit junction i.e. St Mary's Lane, Station Road A128 and Thorndon Avenue A127 are barely fit for the current usage. Any increase in traffic would deem them to be unsafe. Also, roads within the village were built for light residential use, they are starting to break-up and are just not capable of taking any increase in traffic that this development would create. As for rail access, yes there is a station but trains that stop at West Horndon are infrequent and getting a seat at peak times is rare. In addition, If you wish to travel in the direction of London, the only access to the platform is via a pedestrian footbridge.

Your second justification states that West Horndon has local shops and community facilities. Yes, it does have sufficient shops for its current population but not for three times the population. As for community facilities, these are good but are in the main provided by the residents themselves, these would disappear along with the village community.

Next its states that the development offers potential for sustainable development to the benefit of the local community. If the village stays the size that it is, its longer term needs will be minimal.

As for the development providing an opportunity to address current conflicts from competing uses, most notably, heavy freight passing through residential areas; this I support, Brentwood Enterprise Park (CP7), with its planned location, next to the M25 would take heavy traffic not only from Station Road West Horndon but from other residential and minor roads in the area. This can only be a good move.

The Plan states, "to ensure that development takes into account long term community aspirations for the village, the Council will seek a community masterplanning exercise to determine the precise scale, nature and siting of development and associated works". This is a ridiculous statement, if this development were to go ahead, there will be no village and any amount of master planning excercises will not re-create to the community that West Horndon offers.

Another point I must mention is the Flood Risk. Whilst the village has been flooded on three occasions it has, many other times been saved from disaster due to drainage on the fields surrounding the village. If the proposed development were to go ahead both the new development and the village would be at a greater risk of flooding.

The larger part of the proposed development is within Green Belt land which is so precious in South Essex, please don't destroy it. It is a known fact that spending time in fresh air, open spaces and enjoying wildlife is good for your health. This must be good for the nation.

One question I would like to ask. Why is a small village like West Horndon being expected to take 43% of a large Borough's Development Plan?

To summarise, the proposed development would decimate the village of West Horndon. It is a known fact that village communities are generally less dependent on outside agencies and resources such as police, health services and local authorities. It is a known fact that residents take care of one another, provide their own leisure and social facilities etc, etc. Surely village communities are good for the nation as a whole. If development is to be made in the area it should be attached to existing towns where there will be little effect on such communities.

In conclusion, our own MP carries the title of "Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government". IF THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES AHEAD IT WILL NOT ONLY DESTROY AN EXISTING COMMUNITY, IT WILL ALSO DENY FUTURE GENERATIONS THE OPPORTUNITY OF LIVING IN SUCH A PLACE AS WEST HORNDON.