The land in this core policy - in particular that on the south side of A127 is described as 'previously developed land'. This is not the case. This area was the location of the M25 motorway widening works site run by Skanska Balfour Beatty. In July 2009 when work started on this site, meetings were held with planning officers, Highways Agency and site managers. Before work started this was agricultural land. I and others (including Great Warley Conservation Society and Havering Residents Association) received written assurances from James Richardson, the Project Director for the site that "Once the works are complete, the compound will be transformed back to its former use as open agricultural land". The project was completed in July 2012 and whilst a small part of the site was landscaped - the bulk of the buildings, roadways and lights remain.
The guarantee that the site would be returned to agricultural usage has not been met and despite numerous reminders to local planning officers, the situation has not changed.
I therefore question the legality of such land being considered as part of a proposed Enterprise Park.

More local employment is needed

I'd like someone to contact me and explain how you can even consider a plan for an Enterprise Park on Green Belt land? I'd also like to know why after 15 months since the completion of the M25 widening programme the land hasn't been decommissioned and returned to agricultural land as required by law. Also keen to know why you feel an Enterprise Park is required when a couple of hundred yards up the road a very impressive works unit has not been filled and these offices still lie empty after years.

I recently attended the Parish Council Meeting for Herongate, attended by two council planning representatives. I feel I must register my concern regarding the planned development for West Horndon. Whilst I appreciate the need for housing and do not wish to sound "NIMBY", the proposed increase in housing for West Horndon will have a major impact on the surrounding infrastructure. The A128 between the A127 and Brentwood is a busy road at the best of times. During school runs and if there are problems on the M25, this road grinds to a halt. An increase in the population of West Horndon will exacerbate this problem. There is no other direct route into Brentwood for the West Horndon residents and with an increase in population comes an increase of persons wanting to access Brentwood facilities, schools, shops, dentists, doctors. There is also a knock on effect on the local hospitals where waiting lists are already stretched. There is no way that this road can be widened or moved without significant impact on the green belt. I understand that there are no plans to upgrade or expand West Horndon station and doubt that it could cope with an increase in commuters wishing to use the trains and car park. Can you please advise what plans are in place to facilitate a robust infrastructure to support these proposed houses? I have also grave concerns at the constant eating away of the green belt area. This was designed to be the "lungs" of London but is gradually becoming covered in concrete. The M25 works being an example. Was this not supposed to return to green belt? Not become a brown field site for development? I firmly believe that greenbelt should be sacred and development on any inch of it be considered very gravely as any erosion opens the door for further development.

I strongly feel the proposed plan to be ill thought out and to the detriment of Brentwood (West Horndon) for the following reasons.
1. Development of Metropolitan Green Belt (Area 037) This area is a historical flood plain. (flooded as recent as Xmas 2012)
2. The end of West Horndon as a village (double existing population). The total lack of spare capacity in existing infrastructure i.e.
Health: Doctors appt on 3 day wait.
Public transport: trains standing from only during rush hours.
Schools: no secondary school (more buses required) primary school at near capacity.
Drains: Sewers backed up during wet weather no major upgrade since 1950's.
Roads: A127 & A128 very busy trunk roads, gridlock likely with more capacity.
West Horndon is a rural village in isolation from Brentwood & surrounding villages totally unrealistic proposal to double its population.
3. Area (101A) Green Belt with temporary use at present 'no public transport links (only road)
Overcrowded roads as it.
4. Disproportionate share of Brentwood Plan allotted to West Horndon area. No real proposal for cross rail legacy.
No Green Belt land should be considered until realistic plans are drawn for existing brownfield sites. No industrial site can work without good public services links (non road reliant)
These proposed plans (no substance to them) do nothing to instill confidence that the planning at Brentwood Council will do a good, well though out job on the governments/Brentwood Plan 2015-2030.

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 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 justification for this development states that West Horndon has good road and rail access this is just not true. Both the A127 and A128 are not currently adequate to cope with the existing levels of traffic. The proposed development would bring grid-lock 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 junctions ie St Mary's Lane, Station Rd A128 and Thorndon Avenue A127 are barely fit for their current usuage. 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 it 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 planning 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 exercises will not re-create the community that West Horndon offers.
Another point I must mention is Flood Risk Whilst the village has been flooded on three occasions it has, many other times, been saved from disaster due to drainage on fields surrounding the village. If the proposed development were to go ahead both the new development and the village would be 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 space and enjoying wild life 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 on 43% of a large Borough's Development Plan?
To summarize, the proposed development would decimate the village of West Horndon. It is a known fact that village communities are generally less dependant on outside agencies and resources such a police, health services and local authorities. It is a know 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 M.P. carries the title "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.

see attached

On behalf of Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council I am writing to register our objection to the Local Plan 2015-2030 Preferred Options Consultation for the following reasons;

1. Should the draft Local Plan be approved southern Brentwood will lose, amongst others, 2 significant chunks of Metropolitan greenbelt situated directly between London and Brentwood thus undermining the 'green ribbon' around London. Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council does not wish to go the same way as Romford, in 1964, when Havering was incorporated as a new London Borough of Havering and no longer part of Essex County Councils administrative area.

Metropolitan Greenbelt was so named because the instigators of the scheme recognised the exceptional importance of preventing London from sprawling, uncontrollably, across the Home Counties. They saw this as a unique problem due to the size of our capital and the multiplicity of Local Authorities who have a legitimate interest in its growth. It is incumbent on Planners in Essex to pay particular note to this fact and to avoid damaging our green belt at their whim.

2. Any future commitment to greenbelt policy will be permanently undermined given the original 'commitments' to it made by the post-war generation politicians who clearly envisaged situations such as this.

The proposals set a significant precedent for building on greenbelt land of which Herongate and Ingrave has.

3. Herongate and Ingrave Parish Council recommends that the current greenbelt, as set out in the 2005 current Brentwood Local Plan, is retained.

4. Appropriate infrastructure will not be in place to accommodate 1500 extra homes, when built, in West Horndon. West Horndon currently has around 700 homes. Facilities used by Herongate and Ingrave residents will be under increased pressure be it for Hospitals, Doctors, Dentists, Schools, roads and other services.

The proposed massive increase in the population of West Horndon will inevitably compound the problems that we already experience at peak times on the A128. The villages of Herongate and Ingrave create an inevitable ?pinch point? for this congestion. What consideration has been given to coping with the additional loading on our main road?

5. No consultation has taken place with C2C with regards to the increased usage of West Horndon train station and car park. Many residents of our villages use the train station and car park but there are no plans to increase train platform length and car park capacity that is already under strain.

6. There are no planned new secondary schools for the proposed West Horndon development. All the Brentwood secondary schools are oversubscribed and St Martin's has a planning condition not to go beyond 1805 pupils due to congestion. St Martin's is the local secondary school that most Herongate and Ingrave children go to and parents already experience significant traffic congestion during school runs.

7. The proposed movement of West Horndon's industrial premises to the designated greenbelt, as defined in the current 2005 Brentwood Local Plan, to the M25/A127 junction fails to consider public transport for workers that the current industrial site enjoys via a bus service and the regular train service some 50m away. This will increase local road traffic congestion and exclude potential workers that are unable to travel to the proposed new greenbelt industrial site.

8. The proposed Local Plan 2015-2030 acknowledges that 80% of Brentwood's growth will be from outside the borough. Clearly it does not serve the needs of local Brentwood Residents to build on greenbelt land increasing demand on existing, under pressure, services. There are absolutely no guarantees that new housing will meet local demand and that much of this will not be bought for financial investment as part of the buy to let phenomenon.

9. Albeit the proposals are to build on Grade 3 farmland this is still a loss of food production for a country that is unable to feed itself without importation. Building on existing farmland is dangerous and exacerbates the inability for UK to feed itself. This, potentially, affects everyone.

10. In the event that any new West Horndon development is flooded other Brentwood Borough taxpayers are likely to have an increase in Council Tax to pay for improved flood defences.

See attached

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.

In your forward to the Consultancy document you state:
S1. The Councils preferred special strategy for the Borough aims to protect the Green Belt and local character and foster sustainable communities. This certainly has not happened where West Horndon is concerned, but it is in keeping with the constant neglect in almost all departments shown to this village over the last 50 years.

The plan aims to ensure development happens in the right place, where it can do the most good and least harm (to whom) with good access to facilities, such as healthcare, (non existent) parks, schools, shops and public transport. The Plan aims to ensure the historic and natural environment are protected and wherever possible enhanced (you are intending to turn this village into a Town AND DESTROY OUR COMMUNITY) In planning a New Town you need to have regard to the present villagers who all moved here because of its rural location and village atmosphere.

P.8. States that all development sites will be identified having regard to whether they:
(A) Are accessible to public transport. We have two trains per hour, which are already overcrowded, and no further room for improvement, and three busses in the morning that turn around at Brentwood and come straight back. There is only one bus back in the afternoon and that is the school run. (B) Will have no significant impact on the green Belt. This will certainly have an enormous impact on the Metropolitan Green Belt that separates us and no one else from the London urban sprawl at West Horndon.

P.9. Reason for rejection states: Development in remote locations would undermine the rural character of the Borough and increase car dependency. No thought has been given to the requirements of this small village when it is planned to treble its size. The roads that are available to us are almost inaccessible in rush hour and indeed we are often used as a rat run when overcrowding or accidents take place.

Any reduction in the Industrial Site will cause a reduction in employment in the village and no thought has been given to this. Plus, the place that it is proposed to move the site to will be returned to green Belt when no longer required by its present clients, therefore will not be available for use by West Horndon industries.

Both pavements and roads are full of potholes, some seriously. What action is the County Council going to take to this problem? Nothing in the proposals contains any change to this status.

Significant change will have to be made to the drainage system for surface water which is not absorbed by the fields will flood the village, and any surplus will go through and flood Bulphan which is in itself a flood plane. The flood alleviation scheme has been grossly neglected over the past 30 years so what hope do we have that this will change.

The Borough has seen this village as an opportunity to protect the Brentwood area and we have been thrown to the wolves.

Any hint of Travellers being allowed into this village will be met with utmost resistance and when it gets known that this is a possibility then no one will buy property down here.

RE: Proposed Enterprise Park

We live very near this site so what happens in important to us. We realised very early when we saw the extent of building of roads etc on the site it would be difficult to turn back to how it was. But this is still a GREENFIELD site not 'Brownfield' so should revert to this.

So we are against this park. Our main concern is the council allowing it to be a travelers site if they turn it into 'Brownfield'.

I am concerned about the possible future use of the area to the S/E of the former M25 Works site (Marked X on the enclosed map) and the possibility that this land might at some future date, after the completion of the present proposed development, be incorporated into the development site (There has already been precedent for this at Codhorn).

I am also concerned regarding the future and status (public footpath or permissive) of the footpath which originally crossed the M25 Works site (Marked ____) and was since quietly diverted around the site (Marked ------) In addition the Bridle path which runs along the northern boundary, parallel to the A127.

See Attached

See attached

In response to Policy DM23 and specifically the Horndon Industrial Estate (site ref 021):
We are currently tenants on the West Horndon Industrial site and our warehouse is integral to our business employing 50+ staff. It is vital to us to have a warehouse within a 10 mile radius of our store in Upminster. The location of our current site meets our warehousing criteria and we are mindful that any move to an alternative site will incur high costs. We therefore object to the proposed development of the site.

In response to Policy CP7 (site refs 101A & 101B):
As a tenant of West Horndon Industrial Estate we are mindful of the development proposed. Should this be approved and go ahead we would be left without a warehouse to operate from. Our warehouse is key to our business and our store in Upminster is dependent on this should the West Horndon strategic allocation be approved. We express a need for a unit on this development.

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to this proposed development (101A) This is green-belt land and just because it was used for M25 widening does not mean you can develop it as a Business Park. We have enough of them standing empty in Brentwood at the moment. To suggest that t 12 hectares of warehousing & offices would be "an attractive gateway to the borough" (3.17) is utterly preposterous; especially given that this is nowhere near the town. The proposed development would actually destroy a beautiful semi-rural area that provides an appropriate and lovely access to the borough.
It seems to me that this proposal only serves to line the pocket of the current landowner without giving a thought to the detrimental effect on the area.
Green-belt and has been stealthily developed with no planning permission at Codham Hall Farm for many years now and it is an absolute disgrace that our Council has not and does not enforce planning regulations at this site.
The planning regulations were put in place to protect all of the residents in the Borough and its environment from inappropriate development. it's about time they were enforced at this site.

Although I am not keen on seeing my home village of West Horndon treble in size if the draft plan is taken forward in full, I am aware that new homes are needed and so fully appreciate Brentwood Council's thinking on how you have tried to address the issue. I do, however, think 1500 new homes is rather extreme.

My main concern is that the existing roads (Station Road/St Mary's Lane, Childerditch Lane and Thorndon Avenue) most likely to be affected and bear the brunt of increased traffic, are woefully incapable of doing so in their present state. Before any development takes place, it is imperative this aspect be addressed.

The same applies to ensuring sewerage and surface and domestic water drainage are properly catered for.

Other areas of concern are: (i) the effect of increased usage on the railway station - development of the station itself, additional car-parking (where would this be sited), increased train services (more frequent and longer trains?); (ii) healthcare provision - our doctors' surgery is currently a branch surgery; (iii) provision of green spaces and the retention of existing footpaths; (v) provision of homes suitable for elderly residents who wish to remain in the village but cannot, for whatever reason, remain in their present homes; (v) provision of childcare and schools (not of immediate interest to me, but will be to others).

The Plan refers to a possible circular bus route - we shall definitely need improved bus services; the current ones are very inadequate. At the moment, many of the workers at the present industrial sites arrive by train or walk if they live in the village. If the sites are moved as proposed to border the A127, then the workers shall have to drive there thereby increasing traffic and therefore pollution and noise etc. The bus route would have to be frequent, fit in with the train times, reliable and start early and finish late to ensure as many people as possible choose this option to travel to work.

Finally, the increased noise and traffic generated by building works even if only the industrial sites are developed shall cause major disruption to peoples' lives but even more so if the roads are not sorted out first.

One aspect of the Plan I cannot support is that of Traveller Pitches. I know the Council has to supply them by statute but the experience of people I know who live and work by such sites is that Travellers have no regard for the concerns of their non-Traveller neighbours. The examples of the Dale Farm sites (both legal and illegal) are what come to mind with their anti-social behaviour and real/perceived threat to safety and security of neighbouring properties.

Finally, although I am prepared to support the current draft plan, I would not support any further development of West Horndon as outlined in Appendix 2 as this would be a step too far.

I have recently been made aware that the site of the M25 widening contractors is proposed to be made an Enterprise Park.
I must submit my objection to this as by LAW this site should have already been restored to its prior greenbelt status.When I purchased my property in Great Warley 6 years ago I was assured that on completion of the project it would be reinstated and any problem was therefore short term and would go away.
Apart from the above it is essential that we protect our countryside enough has already been ruined.

See attached regarding land at Codham Hall Farm south of A127 (site 101A, former M25 works site)

See attached regarding land at Codham Hall Farm south of A127 (site 101A, former M25 works site)

See attached regarding land at Codham Hall Farm north of A127 (site 101B)

I wish to register my protest at your proposal to create a mammoth Enterprise Park on Green Belt land either side of the A127. Your "green transport" plan is a nonsense and you know it. This scheme will dramatically increase the already unbearable amount of traffic that the B186 already carries because 90% of the workforce will travel there by car. The current speed limits are never enforced; nor the weight restrictions and the Police are disinterested, under-resourced and, when called to accidents, state they won't act until a fatality occurs.
To proceed with this initiative will blight the lives of many whose peaceful enjoyment of their homes is clearly of no interest to you.

Please do not proceed with this destruction of the Green Belt.

I write with reference to the above development as a business at Horndon Industrial Estate; Business Name: Charles H. Fox Ltd.

I wish to strongly object to the proposed development on the following
grounds:

1. Firstly, having purchased this brand new building only five years ago, I am now very concerned as to why Brentwood Council would give planning permission for a development of 10 new warehouses, only to threaten the owners with demolition after such a very short period of time. I was granted a 999 year lease and obviously expected to stay in situ for many, many years.
Brentwood Council MUST have known of this proposed development before my warehouse was built.

2. My decision to purchase in West Horndon was based mainly upon the following reason:
Location: As a resident of WH since 1967 I have chosen my staff carefully from the many people I know in WH. At present I employ 7 full-time staff (including myself) who live in WH. Three other long standing staff use the train to get to WH. We also have a shop in London and easy access to the London premises is essential. We very seldom drive as this is so time consuming and very expensive.
The staff in London also need easy access to the warehouse for many various reasons, hence purchasing a warehouse near to a main line station. Your proposal to re-deploy this estate near the M25 junction 29 is totally unsuitable for my staff and will have a detrimental effect on my business and staff. So much so that if the final outcome were to be compulsory purchase, it is extremely unlikely that we would go to the proposed new sit or remain in Brentwood.

3. Employment: Charles Fox Ltd., and many of the other businesses on the estate rely heavily on local residents for staffing and a huge number of staff use the train to get to and from work. Moving to the M25 will be very time consuming and expensive for existing staff who cannot afford cars. Aren't the local councils supposed to encourage local employment, not destroy it. There has been a working estate in West Horndon for many, many years and it has always provided employment for the villagers. My sister's first job was on the estate and my Mother also worked part-time on the other estate. For young people and Mum's doing part-time work, those who cannot afford or do not want to drive or those who also cannot afford the very high cost of travelling to work by train, this estate provides much needed employment.

Brentwood Council simply MUST consider this very important aspect in their consultations.

Another point on employment, 1500 new homes, must they all have cars or have to take the train, both very expensive, isn't it better to provide MORE work locally? Local employment must NOT be lost.

4. The Estate: This estate is extremely well run, clean, used, infact a very nice busy community in itself.
The Council MUST consider building the new houses elsewhere.

5. Village traffic: It is hardly surprising that the villagers who live in Station Road would be happy to see the Industrial Estates close, the noise they have to put up with during the night is excessive. This could have been easily remedied if the Council had kept to their plans to make a direct access onto the A127 many years ago.

6. Traffic: My staff who drive into WH are always complaining to me about traffic jams in the A127 and are very often late to work due to this. The A127 and surrounding roads simply cannot take much more traffic and 1500 new dwellings in WH will definitely have a grave effect on traffic in the immediate area and beyond. BC MUST take this serious matter into consideration.

The National Planning Policy framework says that local planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions.

It also says that "Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential". I would not be at all surprised if many of the businesses on both Industrial Estates have not sent any objections to the proposed developments, because they have not been properly consulted. Apart from my neighbour who found out very late in the day, all the other units along my row of warehouses (8 in all) were completely unaware of these plans until I advised them. They were not made aware by yourselves or the owners of the site, who when questioned, said they new nothing of these plans. ALL businesses should have been notified by yourselves, directly, in writing.

Not to notify them, directly in writing (letters could have been put in with their new rate demands) is extremely bad policy on behalf of Brentwood Council and appears to be underhanded. You have a "Duty of Care" to your business ratepayers and this has not been adhered to.

I wish to respond to the Draft Plan on the proposed development at West Horndon as follows:

1. Size of development

The Draft Option shows the preferred option for Borough Council of a major new development of 1500 dwellings added to a small village community which is currently made up of 750 dwellings. The proposed development would triple the size of the village and change its character. The village would be asked to accept 43% of the development of the borough.

West Horndon village is mentioned in the 1086 Doomsday Book. The scale of the development proposed would swamp the existing village and would result in creating a new settlement that threatens to make the the current commercial and community centre of the village redundant or even polarise the village by creating a competing commercial area to the existing areas. The plans do not enhance the village but are a bolt-on to the village.

The plan contains few details to support the allocation of a major development to a small village. For example a variety of alternative, modern methods of sustainable sewage treatment are suitable and environmentally beneficial which could be used in the less populated north of the borough, but these appear not to have been investigated. For example, near West Horndon, in St Mary's Lane is a brand new settlement of 10-12 houses with an independent waste water treatment which is commercially viable as all properties have been sold. This should be thoroughly investigated and replicated where possible in the areas discounted as alternative options 3 (semi dispersed growth) and 4 (dispersed growth) in section S1 Spatial Strategy.

National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, waste water and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education and flood risk, and its ability to meet forecast demands. This has not been done. For example the preferred options document makes reference to an evidence based and infrastructure, but is says that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming". It is essential that the borough council provide a plan that address the following issues: West Horndon is several degrees cooler than the surrounding town areas and heating is very important in the long winter months, the broadband is very slow, the primary school and doctors surgery are already at full capacity and there is a legal obligation for authorities to provide school places and healthcare to everyone who needs it. The area is marked as a flood risk. The lack of evidence is not acceptable and full studies would need to be carried out and consulted upon before any agreement to develop takes place.

We are being asked to comment on a major and very significant proposal, but only being presented with an unfinished outline of what is proposed. The benefits for the village are unstated and unknown. There is no proposal of how the scheme might seek to mitigate against any harmful impacts.

The Borough Council are attempting to run a full consultation exercise on a very draft proposal which needs further research and proper evidence. It would probably be open to judicial review if passed in its present form.

2. Consultation process
The government has said that, "too often power was exercised by people who were not directly affected by the decisions they were taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them".

I feel that this plan and the consultation process have been done with a top down process and not bottom up, it feels like the borough council are not listening to the community. I do agree that any dwellings should be developed on the green belt land identified on the plan as 037. There is no natural stopping boundary in this proposal and I believe in time would be extended to cover all the land up to the A127.

The national guidelines state that 'Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies'. The plan presented to residents is still in its infancy and has lots of gaps (flooding, transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, public transport are still to be considered). Until this is carried out the proposal is neither robust nor comprehensive. The borough council need to carry out a study of West Horndon and the other sites mentioned above in order to accurately ascertain whether its plans are affordable. It is easy to build houses, it is another thing to enhance a community. The developers will build the houses and walk away leaving remaining problems and challenges on the doorstep of the Borough Council and West Horndon residents to solve and pay for.


3. Metropolitan Green Belt
The National Planning Policy Framework states that the government attaches great importance to Green Belts and to build on them is in appropriate and harmful. The large plot of 037 is green belt and has no boundary and creep will eventually result in it being built on to the A127 boundary.

If building has to take place in West Horndon then is should be done on the brown belt areas. Suitable brown belt areas are the West Horndon Industrial Estate. There are also brown belt areas at Hutton Industrial, Waits Way industrial Estate and the site formerly housing Elliott's night club. Timmerman's nursery on the 127 was formerly green belt land and if it were to be purchased would be a site suitable for dwellings. Ingatestone have a garden centre which could be developed into residential dwellings. As stated above, there is a site of 10-12 newly built houses which have sold successfully, that have an independent sewage system. This could be replicated across the north of the borough. I would prefer not to see one dwelling built on green belt. However IF green belt land in West Horndon has be built upon then perhaps extending the town along Station Road, and extending the park behind the dwellings and opening an entrance onto Station Road to provide a boundary might be an option. This would extend the lighting along Station Road and along with newly developed suitably lit pathways in the park would provide safe areas for jogging and walking for all age groups, which at the moment is missing from the village. This could provide an exceptional benefit to all members of the community.

4. Cohesion with local amenities
The last census shows that West Horndon contains 750 dwellings, with some 1900 people. The proposal is for an additional 1500 dwellings of yet undetermined density. This is a major proposal which will have a significant impact on the current residents and the proposed new residents. For example the village a limited range of shops (two corner shops, two fireplace shops, several hairdressers and beauty treatment shops, one or two small cafes. The corner shops shut at 8pm and the other shops are all closed by 5pm. The ATM charges to withdraw money. The majority of events running in the village hall run during the day. The village does not have a secondary school and has limited and unreliable bus runs to the schools. The bus service is limited and also unreliable (with perhaps two busses a day to Brentwood and return.) The morning commute to Fenchurch Street is already at full capacity and Network Rail have no plans to upgrade the station, the ancient cement foot bridge, the very dangerous pedestrian entrance (it has no footpath, frequently floods, and near constant low hanging greenery on the way in which includes rosebushes). Availability of doctors is over stretched, there is a three day wait and the surgery does not open before 9am or after 5pm and never on a Saturday, and it closes for 2 hours at lunch! The primary school is at full capacity and there is little for kids to do after school. Unlike the rail link between Shenfield and Ingatestone, the rail at West Horndon only leads out of the borough, thus a more reliable and affordable bus link to Brentwood is essential if the borough wishes to attempt to contain money within the borough. In particular if jobs are to be created within West Horndon it would be good if the council could support residents with in the borough to get to West Horndon and have access to these jobs. If the industrial estate located at West Horndon is to be moved to the M25 site then a reliable and affordable link between the West Horndon train station and the new industrial estate is essential. Shenfield will soon receive Cross rail and despite being advertised as 'end of the crossrail line' is in fact one stop to Liverpool Street and therefore makes access to Heathrow extremely quick indeed! Travel between West Horndon, Billericay and Shenfield is through busy, winding country lanes.

Creating additional dwelling would need a local shop that opens later than 8pm; a free to use ATM; additional money and resources to allow the village hall to run classes and events after work hours; a completely upgraded bus service with frequent and reliable journeys to Brentwood; the doctors surgery too would need more resources to allow it to open for longer hours and Saturdays.

It would be good if a much more thought could be given to the proposed retail development on the brownfield site so that it enhances rather than competes or takes away from the village centre and heart.

5. Impact on the countryside and character of the village
The village is a small low density settlement and is surrounded all by open countryside. Plot 037 has been farmed for years for wheat, oil seed rape, and peas. Construction of 1,000 dwellings that green belt farmed land will reduce food available to the UK, less land for wildlife and loss of ancient hedgerows and borders. It will also destroy the open setting and rural character of the village.

6. Impact on the residents
If any dwellings are to be built on West Horndon Brown Field Sites the residents should really have a say in the mix, proportion and density of the dwellings proposed. The draft plan and road shows did not indicate what is proposed. We would like low density development please. The proposed location of new shops and 'new village hall' is close to existing dwellings and noise of large lorries backing up will travel. Timings of deliveries will need to be limited and agreed. I disagree with a new village hall as proposed by the developers, we really don't need two and it will give the village two centres, thus polarising it - so much for integrating old and new!

The volume of traffic will increase through the village including additional trucks supply the shops and take away the waste. Back gardens currently not over looked will be intruded and the village will lose its rural character, so any development against existing really should be low level. Any development needs to be agreed by the residents and again, I say not one house should be built on green belt land.

7. Impact on the road and junctions in the borough
The major roads of 127 and 128 are already unable to cope with the morning and evening flows of traffic. To create an additional lane and make the dual carriage ways three lanes (effectively making them motorways) would be extremely costly and involve removing several homes. The Station Road 128 Junction would require redevelopment. The bridge over the railway station is an s bend and narrow. it would need to be widened and become a modern 'carbuncle' on the side of the village.

The junction at the station, the current industrial estate is a dangerous blind spot. Traffic coming over the bridge cannot see traffic exiting the station nor from the estate. Traffic from the station exit is unable to see traffic coming over the bridge. Pedestrian do not have a crossing across station road and need to run the width of two lanes and two bus stops - a very wide stretch of road between the proposed site and the station. If dwelling are built on the industrial estate the crossing to the railway station and bus station (for children returning from secondary school) will be extremely dangerous. The proposed small roundabout proposed by the developers would not work. It appears to be a lazy and cheap solution and needs proper investigation. The pedestrian entrance to the station is shared with the vehicles. There is no footpath.

Existing junctions from 127 to the village are inadequate and vehicles need to slow down to 20mph and lower to safely go onto these roads, at the annoyance and indeed horror of other road users which, when able, can travel at 60mph.

There are no footpaths to the west of the west of the village along St Mary's Lane which lead to winding narrow roads.

8. Flood risk
The proposed plot of 037 is the flood plain for Thorndon Park. It does indeed flood and has done badly 1958, 1981 and 2012. An assessment of the drainage in the area would need to be carried out before any building is planned in West Horndon. The Environment Agency web site shows West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding. It is the low lying area with the hills of Brentwood to its north. Flood alleviation in the area will have a knock on affect to land south of West Horndon.

9. loss of current employment
The brownfield site proposed to be used is almost 17 hectares of employment land. It will be essential that existing businesses can be relocated to near by sites efficiently, cheaply and with benefit to the businesses so that they are not lost to other boroughs in the area. We need to ensure that we local employment is encouraged.


I really do care for the village I have chosen to live in and welcome good well-integrated, robustly investigated and sustainable development. In the years ahead I will not wish to explain to my family why developers were able to walk away with huge profits yet able to leave the village with long-term, expensive challenges that the community and borough council have to solve and pay for.

- What infrastructure is in place with regards to roads, services, transport, schools etc. before the build begins
- Within the 1500 homes how many will be 1,2,3 bedrooms.? Depending on this answer how do you intend to accommodate these people?
- How do you plan to stop the village from flooding, by removing the green belt which helps with drainage, what are you going to put in place?
- With 1500 homes will bring minimum of 1500 cars possible leading to over 3000, the A127 London bound of a morning is always nose to tail and in the evening Southend bound what do you plan to do about this?
- The Doctors in the village is under pressure as it is, it will never be able to cope with additional 1500 or 250. Same goes for the playschool, primary school, and how do plan to coach the secondary school children into Brentwood?
- West Horndon is a village and this is why we moved here, once you bring in this amount of properties we will then become a town and we don't won't this
- There is a lot of people that work on the industrial estate that rely on the trains to get to work, how do you plan to get these people from the station to the M25?

I recognize the need for more housing in the area & support the proposals outlined in CP7.

However, development in this small community should stop there,& I object to CP4 on the grounds that :
1)It would create an impracticable amount of increased traffic (on the village's already over-used main road);

2)Increased flood-risk (in an area that already suffers from flooding);

3) It would contravene the principle & ethicality of the existence of Green Belt Land.

I have read the Local Plan 2015 - 2030: Preferred Options for Consultation with interest and while I can understand the overall rationale I must object to the proposed development at West Horndon. There are many reasons why the village of West Horndon objects. I will focus on the following:

Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
Policy DM1: General Development Criteria
Policy DM5: Employment Development Criteria

Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area
Justification 3.7 states that West Horndon has "good road and rail access". Whilst true it does have a train station the train line, operated by c2c, runs from Fenchurch Street to Shoeburyness. It does not stop, nor pass through, any other stations in Brentwood Borough and peak trains run once every 20 minutes c2c has no plans to increase the frequency of the trains.

In order to gain rail access to the other Brentwood Borough stations travellers would have to either: travel to Upminster, change to the Greater Anglia line to Romford and change trains again to catch a train towards Brentwood; or, travel to Southend and change train lines to come back towards London.

Whilst West Horndon does provide good access to the City, the "good rail access" will not improve access to the Borough, nor help to keep jobs within the borough as those travelling by train are much less likely to live within the borough unless they live within West Horndon itself.

Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
I commend you for seeking to reduce travel, congestion and pollution, but I fail to see how you will achieve this. The reduction in travel is linked to providing jobs in West Horndon, but these are likely to be in retail, with some small offices. Given that your own research to date shows that a higher than average percentage of Brentwood borough residents commute to central London, I would like to understand how retail and small offices will keep jobs local. What plans are in place to encourage those who would occupy the 1500 new homes in prime commuter belt to work locally? Without these details I can not assess the full impact so have to object.

Justification 3.57 seeks to reduce car travel, partly by introducing a Green Travel Route (3.59) to link Brentwood with West Horndon and the Enterprise park. The journey from Brentwood to West Horndon on the proposed Green Travel Route is 5.5 miles and currently would take c. 20 minutes at peak times, not including the additional time a bus requires to pick up and set down passengers. The journey from West Horndon to Brentwood would be 6.5 miles and take 27 minutes, again without accounting for the additional time required. I have to question again why those moving to the new home in the borough would make this journey to get to work when they could:

a. Commute to any of the other major employment centres on their train line (c2c/Greater Anglia). West Horndon to Basildon takes 8 minutes; Brentwood to Shenfield takes 6 minutes. Passengers can even get to Fenchurch Street and Liverpool Street in 30 and 38 minutes respectively.
b. Drive, taking short-cuts and not stopping at each bus stop, reducing their journey time and providing greater flexibility throughout the day.

At present, because I assume the transport assessment is still forthcoming, the frequency and practicality of such a service has not been determined. Nor has the cost of a ticket per journey/season tickets. Similarly, improved walking and cycling routes have not yet been defined. I would point out that to the average commuter, walking or cycling 5.5 - 6.5 miles to get to work would be considered too far and be too time consuming.

The bus journey on the proposed Green Travel Route has to utilise the A127. The road is already at capacity and arguably over capacity during peak times with a build up of traffic back past the Junction with the A128. Without understanding how the additional traffic, firstly from demolishing the industrial estate and building the new development, then from the occupants and business of the new development in West Horndon, would be accommodated on the A127 I can not asses if it is practical so can not support the plan.

Policy DM1: General Development Criteria
The policy states that the development should "have no adverse affect on the visual amenity, the character or appearance of the surrounding area". While you do acknowledge in Justification 4.3 that new dwellings should not look out of place, the addition of 1500 homes plus the other (mixed) development will treble the size of the village changing dramatically the character or 'feel' of the village. I, and many other residents of West Horndon, chose the village because we wished to live in a small, close-knit, community. Trebling the size of the village will remove this, it will no longer be the type of place in which I chose to live. In addition, there is a risk, given the location of the development, that a 'them and us' culture could develop. Without understanding how this will be sensitively managed I can not support the development.

Policy DM5: Employment Development Criteria
I can not agree that trebling the size of the village will mean that the development complies with point a. "be of a scale and nature appropriate to the locality". Point d requires vehicular access to avoid residential streets and county lanes. I have to question how this will be achieved. Current access to the site is via the main road in West Horndon which is a residential street. The development is planned over 15 years, this would be many, many years of disruption for the residents.

I am aware that there are many more objections to the proposed West Horndon development, including the flood risk as the village has flooded twice in the past three years. There is also concern that a secondary school has not been proposed, this would require further transport to be provided to enable children aged between 11 - 16 to attend a school, potentially in a neighbouring borough.

While I do support the development of brown-field sites I can not support the development of green-field sites. Moving the current West Horndon industrial park to a new location with vastly improved road access makes good sense, as does developing the current Industrial site to accommodate new housing and a small mix of other amenities. The current infrastructure is also significantly more likely to be able to cope with a smaller scale development.

I would like to understand how the neighbouring boroughs have been consulted about the plans. As West Horndon is on the very edge of Brentwood borough, any increases to population will impact both Havering and Thurrock. What impact is this expected to have on them and are they able to cope with the proposals?

In conclusion, I can not support the development plans as they stand for West Horndon as I do not believe the village or the infrastructure can support them. I also question the time and cost required to make improvements to the infrastructure if the plans were to go ahead as shown. How would the drastic improvements be funded?

I would be happy to discuss my comments and look forward to the Community Master Planning exercise.