See attached document

The Dunton Garden Suburb site would seem to be the most appropriate site because of it's location and surrounding infrastructure, however careful thought would need to be given to the potential effects of an increase in traffic volume. As a regular user of these routes I find that they are heavily congested and traffic is at a standstill at certain times of the day.

Please see attached document

I much prefer Dunton - save on the council tax for new roads etc and bring jobs and growth and new money to Dunton

see attached

See attached

Just to say that:

I approve of the Dunton Garden Suburbs Development
I am totally opposed to any releasing on Greenbelt land around villages, I am okay with Brownfield sites.

Thanks for your e-mail dated 8.1.14 with regard to the Dunton Garden Suburb Plan Consultation. We have reviewed your proposals & note that your proposals do not affect the current or (future) operation of the mainline network in Great Britain.

It might be helpful if I explain that the office has a number of key functions and duties in our role as the independent regulator of Britain's Railways. If your plans relate to the development of the current railway network including the operation of passenger and freight services, stations, stabling and freight sites (including the granting of track and station access rights and safety approvals) within your administrative area, we would be happy to discuss these with you once they become more developed so we can explain any regulatory and statutory issues that may arise.

The Parish Council has looked at the Strategic Growth Options document and has come to the following conclusions.

It supports the Plan and the proposal to develop along the A127 Corridor and the Dunton Garden Suburb. We see this joint venture with Basildon Borough Council as a very strategic and sensible way of delivering the required number of houses to meet Government criteria without overly burdening parts of the Borough that do not have the infrastructure to support any reasonably sized development.

This proposal also takes the strain off small Parishes within the Borough and should eliminate the need to develop on inappropriate Green Belt within the Parishes. We are of course mindful that a large chunk of Green Belt will be used to deliver the government requirements in the West Horndon area. However, given the scale of the development, local infrastructure can be put in place and a new rail station is proposed (although not agreed by Network Rail as yet). The A127 road would also get some significant improvements which it is very much in need of.

The consultation document includes many sites within our Parish that we would find unpalatable for development. However, it has been pointed on numerous occasions that these have to be included if they have been proposed at any time, otherwise the LDP document can be deemed as inadmissible. The need to build on these sites is greatly reduced if the larger Dunton Garden Suburb scheme is adopted.

To sum up, we recommend to Brentwood Borough Council that the Parish Council supports the proposed Dunton proposed plan and is in favour of transport corridor led development predominantly along the A127. It does not however support the development of the Green Belt within the smaller parished areas, as with Blackmore, Hook End and Wyatts Green, and feel that the infrastructure would not accommodate such development.

I would like to comment about the local development plan but do not feel that I would be able to adequately express my views by completing the questionnaire and so hope that my e mailed comments will be added to the responses you receive.

I appreciate it is a difficult task trying to find locations for new housing in the area whilst still protecting what it is we all love about living in that area.

I am very strongly against the very large proposed sight to the side of Herongate. What makes Brentwood so special is the beautiful villages that surround it. If the proposal went ahead in this area you are essentially joining Herongate and Ingrave to Hutton and destroying two villages.

The proposed site does not have the infrastructure to cope with a housing development of the size suggested. The roads are barely wide enough for two cars to pass at present and the junction from the Billericay Road onto the A128 is inadequate and extremely dangerous for the already very, very busy roads in the area. The A128 is already unable to cope with the volume of traffic that travels into Brentwood during rush hour. The fact that from my understanding the Dunton Garden City is looking very likely is going to put the already inadequate roads under immense pressure. I know there are plans to expand the A127 into a 6 lane highway but I have seen no mention of the impact this Garden City will have on the traffic through the villages. To add a further housing estate in Herongate will be catastrophic to the traffic on the A128 and I see no way of improving the A128 to ease this.

I sincerely hope that this site was just flagged up as a possibility by the working party employed to find land in the borough and that the council will throw this proposal out instantly. If it does not it will illustrate that the people involved in making the decision have lost complete touch with its constituents and what makes Brentwood and it's villages special. I can tell you that you will face extreme resistance from all residents of Herongate and Ingrave who will not allow this to go ahead without a huge fight. We appreciate that houses need to be built but fiercely believe our Green built should be protected. Herongate and Ingrave are already going up suffer when the Dunton Garden City goes ahead and so we feel that we have done our bit and that other sites need to be chosen over the site in Herongate.

I wish to object to Brentwood's Strategic Growth Options Consultation on the grounds that the Council have fixated on creating developments within the greenbelt, and not identified redundant brownfield areas first.

The questionnaire is complicated and very difficult to understand. The level of plain English used is poor. The choice of answers given are also biased, weighted in favour of what the council wishes to hear.

I do not believe the consultation has been democratic in how it has been presented to the general public in either it's content or time frame.

Further more, neighbouring Thurrock residents, of which I am one, had no idea this proposal was even being discussed and considered until enlightened by friends living in West Horndon. If it wasn't for social media many more residents would be in the dark (many more probably still are).

The positioning of the Dunton Garden Suburb in relation to the south of the Thurrock Borough would have a catastrophic effect on the openess of our borough. To allow two boroughs to create a joint development would also create urban sprawl.

The openess and countryside between Brentwood, Basildon and Thurrock needs to be preserved for future generations. To suggest greenbelt areas can be redrawn is nonsensical in an area that is already only greenbelt! A loss is a loss. Native flora and fauna, paramount to the ecology of the local area, and a necessity to offset the current pollution levels caused by heavy traffic already using the A127 corridor, will be decimated.

The Lower Dunton Road and A128 are the two roads which would be used for access to the A13. Both are single carriageway. To build both Dunton Garden Suburb and widen roads would involve compulsory purchase of both land and housing.

Compulsory purchasing of agricultural and greenbelt land for development should only be allowed in exceptional circumstances. Considering unmet housing needs do not constitute an exceptional circumstance and does not outweigh the damage caused by the loss of greenbelt land, compulsory purchase orders should not be entertained until all brownfield, redundant sites in both the Brentwood and Basildon areas are exhausted.

Do I need to point out that there is an industrial site in West Horndon that should be used for housing before the greenbelt surrounding area is even considered?

The Government have pledged to protect the greenbelt from development so long as local Councils present a local plan that identifies suitable sites for their housing quota.

I do not believe Brentwood Council have identified enough redundant, brownfield areas and therefore, on this basis alone, the Consultation should be halted unil more options are identified.

see attached

see attached

see attached

I am writing to you with regard to your strategic growth options consultation.
As you can see I live in Harold Park which borders Brentwood and I do all my shopping etc in the Brentwood area and spend a good deal of time there. I very much enjoy travelling to Brentwood usually on public transport, and seeing the countryside and areas of green belt which surrounds both Harold Park and Brentwood. This is one of Brentwood's greatest assets, it is what draws people to live here and makes it a pleasant place to live. As such I was extremely upset to think that you would consider building on the green belt. Even this week the Standard newspaper quoted Thurrock and Epping Forest as the two top places that people wish to live in and gave the reason as "because it is surrounded by green belt land" (See Evening Standard Tuesday 3 February 2015, page 13). I believe this emphasises how important green belt land is and why it should not be built upon.

I list my reasons and comments below:
* Your document does not seem to have been approached on a sensible and even basis. Especially concerning the bias running through the document leading towards development to the south of the Borough. For example, the obvious and severe traffic existing problems on the A127 are not stated in the discussion, with development being seen as a possible solution to an inferred need, (3.12) whereas such growth in the A12 corridor 'could have similar negative impacts on infrastructure and services' (3.13) and in the even more so in (2.10) where development in the Brentwood urban area and north of the Borough creates problems whereas in the A127 corridor and West Horndon development "creates opportunities" according to your document.

* For the reason states above the consultation is not objective in terms of presentation and environmental and financial cost.

Q1: Do you agree with the three broad areas, for the purpose of considering approaches to growth?

No for the following reasons:

It is arguable whether the Borough needs subdividing at all for growth purposes.
In the absence of evidence relating to transport it is far from certain that this is the key matter to base decisions upon.

Even in the most rural parts of the Borough transport is not particularly poor compared with many parts of Essex let alone the country.

The subdivision is based ostensibly on transport but the north / middle / south land subdivisions is just too coarse a reflection of transport availability, this being predominantly linear in nature.

Even accepting transport led subdivisions in principle, this quickly needs to be refined by considering the questions of available capacity and financial and environmental cost to upgrade to accommodate growth. Without these considerations the basis of the study is unsupported.

Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised for each of these three areas?

Partially although the brief analysis 2.14 - 2.19 should be consistent. 2.19 is particularly biased whereby it makes an unsupported link between the character and availability of land for growth being potentially greater (surely this is the ultimate conclusion of considering all aspects of land use) and that the A127 has more scope for improvements than the A12 (and I would add, the A128, B roads and local road network).

To reiterate the point under Q1 if transport really is the key issue then a link is required between problems and solutions before judgements can be suggested.
Issues for the three areas should also concentrate on environmental impacts of the various options.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular sites?
I believe it is totally inappropriate to use Green Belt land for such purposes. I agree with the aim to maximise the use of brownfield areas both within urban and rural localities.

Even taking this into account should additional sites be required these should generally be of an infill nature or otherwise to create compact communities. This should apply to both urban and rural areas in order to create built up areas that minimise impact on landscape and facilitate the creation of a focus. The extent to which this principle should be applied would be based on minimising impact vs growth.

In terms of the sites illustrated:

3.12 - The completely new town 'Dunton Garden Suburb' would in my view have disproportionate impacts on the Green Belt in addition to creating a new urban centre which I feel would be detrimental to Brentwood Town centre and the road network. In addition the growth suggested for West Horndon is clearly disproportionate to the suggested aims above. Some smaller growth to West Horndon though could be accommodated whilst keeping the existing community compact and focused.

3.13 - In general both these option should be pursued within the aims I mention above. I would oppose the large scale areas shown south east of Hutton as per my comments on the 'Dunton Garden Suburb'. Further linear expansion at Brook Street termed 'Development options at M25' are also highly detrimental to the Green Belt by eroding this already narrow strip between Brentwood and the edge of the Green Belt in Havering, and that at Coombe Woods, Bereden Lane would be a planning travesty. Some smaller growth opportunities to Pilgrims Hatch, Shenfield and Honeypot Lane would perhaps have the least affect on the Green Belt and be close enough to existing built up areas to keep the built up area as compact as possible and focus activity towards existing urban centres. Small extensions to Mountnessing and Ingatestone that are within the confines of the existing road / rail corridor could also be considered.

The idea of an additional junction with the A12 to intercept the A128 is so obvious that I'm surprised that this wasn't incorporated back in the 1960s. It is this sort of link to the interrelationship between growth and transport that I was referring above although in this case it would have a significant added benefit to the community rather than just accommodating additional pressure created by growth.

3.14 - Isolated sites should not in general be considered for housing development such as Clapgate Estate and Thoby Priory. Some smaller growth to each of the main communities shown on the plan (except Navestock) could be accommodated whilst keeping the existing community compact and focused.

Q4: Given the greater capacity for growth along the A127 Corridor, which of the sites put forward do you think is the best location for growth?

This is a strange leading statement as the assumption regarding greater capacity for growth along the A127 Corridor remains undemonstrated. On the face of it the same phrase could be used to open a question about any other part of the Borough. For example, if necessary local road improvements could be considered for the area of the 'five villages' in the northern subdivision.

As discussed above in relation to the A127 Corridor limited growth at West Horndon is the only reasonable option for this sub area.

Q5: Should the A12 Corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites in the edge of urban area?

I assume that this is referring to Green Belt land and therefore my answer is no.

Q6: In order to provide for local need is it preferable for greenfield sites on the edge of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within Green Belt)?

It is in general much more preferable for brownfield sites to be developed over greenfield sites however the impacts and implications of this do need to be taken into consideration. In some cases brownfield sites are best left in employment use and / or are not in a town or village context and in such cases creation of new housing in the countryside should be avoided.

Q7: To enable future employment need to be met do you agree that the most sustainable approach is to allocate new sites close to the strategic highway Network?

I think the link between employment use and the strategic highway network is likely to be sweeping and in cases the opposite is true.

I also believe that we should be looking at sustainable transport such as the railways and not adding to road traffic and pollution.

I would say that future employment need should be met by considering the full range of planning matters including impacts on the landscape and the green environment.

Q8: In order to ensure that the Town Centre remains economically sustainable, do you agree that a "Town Centre First" approach should be taken to retail development?

Definitely. Retail lends itself well to densification of existing land use and I do not feel that release of any green belt land should be necessary to accommodate such growth.

Q9: Are there opportunities for more open space provision in the area where you live?

Not so much provision of open space as the need for better recreational linkages between open spaces.

It would be helpful if the Council were more proactive in terms of the environment and, for example, provided public transport to the parks such as South Weald and Thorndon, or at least provide free parking for the first 2 hours. It is important to replace trees on the edge of roads etc to keep Brentwood feeling rural and not urban. To this end it is important to avoid advertising creep on business premises. I think it is important to not have neon signs for e.g. the Holiday Inn and other businesses. It is important not to allow planning creep, a poor example of this and one which the Council could have prevented is the large Sainsbury store which when it was first built was built away from the main road in quite a laid back position with trees and landscaping. Not long after it was allowed to build the monstrous car park which as well as being an eye sore has meant those arriving on foot have to walk much further to get to the entrance.
The A127 represents a severe block to north - south recreational routes. Effectively there is no sympathetic crossing for the 6.5km from Great Warley Road to Dunton outside of the Borough. This is very regrettable matter as it limits the value of Thorndon Park to residents of West Horndon and any recreational users coming from the south to the Park.

Q10: Please rate the level to which you value the landscape near where you live. (see page 29)

In Harold Park and living very near to the borders of Brentwood the following areas are very important to me.

Being able to see the countryside and not feeling like I live in a town, being able to see wildlife, the need for woods and trees to provide oxygen, to counteract pollution and to act as a sound barrier to prevent noise from the road and the railway. I would therefore rank the following as of equal importance.

Scenic Beauty / Outdoor Recreation / Wildlife interest / Historical interest / Tranquillity

Other - a key aspect omitted is views. As mentioned in my first paragraph it is very important to me to be able to see green fields, deer roaming, etc and I think that Brentwood Council should be doing more to prevent the urbanisation of the area. For example limit the advertising signage and changes which are more in link with an urban area than a semi rural one.

Q11: To what extent do you think the following is present in the landscape near where you live?

Houses - all the houses are in tree lined roads and surrounded by gardens and the estates are green with fields all around.

Commercial buildings - there are very few apart from a small number of local retail.

Nature Reserves - I can get to Thames Chase / South Weald / Thorndon Park in a matter of minutes.

Farmland - several farms although Oak Farm has never been seen as a proper farm.

Woodland - Many woods which act as a sound barrier, provide oxygen and look pleasant

Wasteland - none

Infrastructure - A12, A127, M25 nearby but not so near as to disturb the peace, railway nearby Leisure Facilities - sufficient, especially as I enjoy walking and cycling and there is a cycle path and several areas to walk in without needing a car.

Q12: Have we considered the main infrastructure issues? Are there other important issues to consider?

I do not believe that green belt should be built on at all. Instead the borough should be not allowing the building of large accommodation, for example most recent estates are for 3 or 4 bedroom detached houses where there is clearly a need for 1, 2 and 3 bedroom houses to meet the need especially factoring in the change in families, more single people etc.

Q13: What do you think the priorities for infrastructure spending should be?

This requires a study in itself and I note that this is being looked into (6.3). As stated throughout this response though I feel that Strategic Growth options need to come out of the conclusions from the infrastructure study (and studies into other such high level matters) rather than being in a response to a more arbitrarily suggested steer.

As discussed above I believe there are many opportunities for the council to be more pro-active in terms of infrastructure and caring about the environment and restoring and maintaining a sense of community. For example, including sustainable transport in any plans concerning infrastructure, for example, sensible and safe cycle lanes which don't encroach on the pavement. Free parking and transport to local parks. Maintenance of footpaths and public bridleways to encourage people to make use of the fields around. Support for local shops and local post offices. Encouragement for people to shop locally, for shops to sell local produce. Subsidies for milkmen, paper deliveries etc so that the elderly and vulnerable are included in any plans. Creating a community whereby the elderly and vulnerable are not isolated, for example encouraging businesses, banks and libraries to use people and not replace people with systems, e.g. banks in Brentwood high street, Brentwood library etc. This also has the added benefit of creating employment.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding the above in due course.

see attached

I write in respect of your Strategic Growth Options Consultation

A general comment is that the document needs to be much more evidence based an even handed. There is a bias running through the document resulting in a leading towards development the south of the Borough. I cannot cite all of these, but as examples:

The obvious and severe traffic existing problems on the A127 are not states in the discussion, with development being seen as a possible solution to an inferred need, (3.12) whereas such growth in the A12 corridor 'could have similar negative impacts on infrastructure and services' (3.13) and in the even more so in (2.10) where development in the Brentwood urban area and north of the Borough creates problems whereas in the A127 corridor and West Horndon development creates opportunities.

To prevent such a bias developing the whole consultation needs to be supported by an objective presentation of localities under 'stress' and the costs (both financial and environmental) to deal with these.

Q1: Do you agree with the three broad areas, for the purpose of considering approaches to growth?

No for the following reasons:

It is arguable whether the Borough needs subdividing at all for growth purposes and the approach to growth needs to be based primarily around Green Belt considerations. I believe that to accommodate growth all steps possible should be taken to limit the release of Green Belt and that this course of action should only be followed in extenuating circumstances where there is no other realistic possibility.

Other models for growth should be considered and I believe that to accommodate growth all steps should be taken to minimize the release of Green Belt. Means of doing this include:

* Maximising the use of derelict or underused urban space;
* Increasing densities within already built up areas;
* Developing brownfield areas both within urban and rural localities

Should any release of Greenfield land be absolutely essential these should be considered through
* Release of infill sites
* Release of many smaller sites on the edge of urban areas
* Application of suitably high densities to any greenfield land released.

Further comments on the broad divisions are:

In the absence of evidence relating to transport I think it unlikely that this is the only or most important matter on which to base decisions. Even in the most rural parts of the Borough transport is not particularly poor compared with many parts of Essex let alone the country. The subdivision is based ostensibly on transport but the north / middle / south land subdivisions is just too coarse a reflection of transport availability, this being predominantly linear in nature.

Even accepting transport led subdivisions in principle, this quickly needs to be refined by considering the questions of available capacity and financial and environmental cost to upgrade to accommodate growth. Without these considerations the basis of the study is unsupported.

Q2: Do you agree with the issues raised for each of these three areas?

Partially although the brief analysis 2.14 - 2.19 should be consistent. 2.19 is particularly biased whereby it makes an unsupported link between the character and availability of land for growth being potentially greater (surely this is the ultimate conclusion of considering all aspects of land use) and that the A127 has more scope for improvements than the A12 (and I would add, the A128, B roads and local road network).

To reiterate the point under Q1 if transport really is the key issue then a link is required between problems and solutions before judgements can be suggested.
Issues for the three areas should also concentrate on environmental impacts of the various options.

Q3: Do you have any comments on the appropriateness of particular sites?

I believe that principles regarding the release of Green Belt should be foremost and in principle all steps should be taken to minimize such release. I agree with the aim to maximize the use of brownfield areas both within urban and rural localities. I also feel that release of Green Belt could be further minimized by appropriately increasing the density of existing settlements.

Even taking this into account should additional sites be required these should generally be of an infill nature or otherwise to create compact communities. This should apply to both urban and rural areas in order to create built up areas that minimise impact on landscape and facilitate the creation of a focus. The extent to which this principle should be applied would be based on minimising impact vs growth.

In terms of the sites illustrated:

3.12 - The completely new town 'Dunton Garden Suburb' would in my view have disproportionate impacts on the Green Belt in addition to creating a new urban centre which I feel would be detrimental to Brentwood Town centre and the road network. In addition the growth suggested for West Horndon is clearly disproportionate to the suggested aims above. Some smaller growth to West Horndon though could be accommodated whilst keeping the existing community compact and focused.

3.13 - In general both these option should be pursued within the aims I mention above. I would oppose the large scale areas shown south east of Hutton as per my comments on the 'Dunton Garden Suburb'. Further linear expansion at Brook Street termed 'Development options at M25' are also highly detrimental to the Green Belt by eroding this already narrow strip between Brentwood and the edge of the Green Belt in Havering, and that at Coombe Woods, Bereden Lane would be a planning travesty. Some smaller growth opportunities to Pilgrims Hatch, Shenfield and Honeypot Lane would perhaps have the least affect on the Green Belt and be close enough to existing built up areas to keep the built up area as compact as possible and focus activity towards existing urban centres. Small extensions to Mountnessing and Ingatestone that are within the confines of the existing road / rail corridor could also be considered.

The idea of an additional junction with the A12 to intercept the A128 is so obvious that I'm surprised that this wasn't incorporated back in the 1960s. It is this sort of link to the interrelationship between growth and transport that I was referring above although in this case it would have a significant added benefit to the community rather than just accommodating additional pressure created by growth.

3.14 - Isolated sites should not in general be considered for housing development such as Clapgate Estate and Thoby Priory. Some smaller growth to each of the main communities shown on the plan (except Navestock) could be accommodated whilst keeping the existing community compact and focused.

Q4: Given the greater capacity for growth along the A127 Corridor, which of the sites put forward do you think is the best location for growth?

This is a strange leading statement as the assumption regarding greater capacity for growth along the A127 Corridor remains undemonstrated. On the face of it the same phrase could be used to open a question about any other part of the Borough. For example, if necessary local road improvements could be considered for the area of the 'five villages' in the northern subdivision.
As discussed above in relation to the A127 Corridor limited growth at West Horndon is the only reasonable option for this sub area.

Q5: Should the A12 Corridor accommodate growth by releasing sites in the edge of urban area?

The same general comment applies in that if so this needs to be based on environmental impacts in addition to a more thorough examination of local constraints and the costs / benefits of satisfactorily resolving these. On the face of it though the five main urban area in this subdivision are likely to offer the most from release of Greenfield land because there is

* A greater perimeter to the built up area and urban and semi urban landscape
* A number of existing town facilities
* A closer proximity of brownfield land and areas requiring regeneration in these areas
* A greater choice that investment from growth will go into Brentwood Borough
* In addition transport links this broad area are good

Q6: In order to provide for local need is it preferable for greenfield sites on the edge of villages to be released, or to develop brownfield sites (both within Green Belt)?

It is in general much more preferable for brownfield sites to be developed over greenfield sites however the impacts and implications of this do need to be taken into consideration. In some cases brownfield sites are best left in employment use and / or are not in a town or village context and in such cases creation of new housing in the countryside should be avoided.

Q7: To enable future employment need to be met do you agree that the most sustainable approach is to allocate new sites close to the strategic highway Network?

I think the link between employment use and the strategic highway network is likely to be sweeping and in cases the opposite is true. Certain employment uses can be advantageous in creating a positive mixture of land uses and communities. However as stated in the text some employment uses create a number of adverse impacts on communities. I do not think good strategic highway network per se is so important for many employment uses nor for modern business needs' however it may be that such a pattern develops by consequence of considering other aspects of planning. I would say that future employment need should be met by considering the full range of planning matters including impacts on the landscape and the green environment.

Q8: In order to ensure that the Town Centre remains economically sustainable, do you agree that a "Town Centre First" approach should be taken to retail development?

Definitely. Retail lends itself well to densification of existing land use and I do not feel that release of any green belt land should be necessary to accommodate such growth.

Q9: Are there opportunities for more open space provision in the area where you live?

Not so much provision of open space as the need for better recreational linkages between open spaces.

It would be helpful if the Council were more proactive in terms of the environment and, for example, provided public transport to the parks such as South Weald and Thorndon, or at least provide free parking for the first 2 hours. It is important to replace trees on the edge of roads etc to keep Brentwood feeling rural and not urban. To this end it is important to avoid advertising creep on business premises. I think it is important to not have neon signs for e.g. the Holiday Inn and other businesses.

The A127 represents a severe block to north - south recreational routes. Effectively there is no sympathetic crossing for the 6.5km from Great Warley Road to Dunton outside of the Borough. This is very regrettable matter as it limits the value of Thorndon Park to residents of West Horndon and any recreational users coming from the south to the Park.

Q10: Please rate the level to which you value the landscape near where you live. (see page 29)

Q11: To what extent do you think the following is present in the landscape near where you live?

I think it misleading to ask for a comparison between other areas in Brentwood Borough in Q10. The real aim should be to discover what impacts release of any Greenfield land would have. Intrinsic value of the landscape being considered for development is one of these, but the impacts would be a combination of both the nature of the proposed developments (including indirect effects) and aspects related to wider values relating to those areas impacted. The first part needs at least some definition. The second part needs to be judged not just on the parameters listed but also on other factors such as:

Views - this being more about the vistas that can be gained of and from the area under consideration.
Value in providing 'green lungs' to surrounding developed areas
Value in providing green continuity for the purposes of nature conservation recreation
Ability to be viewed and used

To take an example, an urban park may score v low on most of the aspects of question 10 but would suggest that the impacts of developing this space could be huge. My views on impact on landscape are largely answered under question 3.

Q12: Have we considered the main infrastructure issues? Are there other important issues to consider?

I'm not sure that green infrastructure covers the point I wish to make as green infrastructure sounds like a local provision to create a desirable community. The main issues for me surrounds the pattern of any release of Green Belt land to accommodate growth. I firmly believe that even if growth on one or two large scale land releases could be accommodated this model would seriously make Brentwood a poorer Borough compared with a more dispersed growth model. This is because the 'pain' of smaller Green Belt losses can be more easily absorbed and the gain more directly and perhaps fairly directed to the relevant community. With a few large scale developments the 'pain' of growth simply has to be swallowed - no one can ignore the detriment to the Green Belt that would be created by developments the size of that at West Horndon and the Dunton Garden Suburb but the gain is likely to be only too readily swallowed up in dealing with the obvious capacity issues that would be created by such a concentration of living and associated activity.

To restate, a more dispersed growth model can be used to efficiently use existing infrastructure capacity possibly with little intervention whereas large developments will inevitably require greater use of investment into the Borough in solving problems created by the development.

Q13: What do you think the priorities for infrastructure spending should be?

This requires a study in itself and I note that this is being looked into (6.3). As stated throughout this response though I feel that Strategic Growth options need to come out of the conclusions from the infrastructure study (and studies into other such high level matters) rather than being in a response to a more arbitrarily suggested steer.

See attached document

See Attached.

See Attached.

See Attached.

See Attached.

See Attached.

see attached

Thank you for giving the Highways Agency the opportunity to comment on the above consultations. We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's Strategic Road Network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport as laid down in the Department for Transport (DfT) Circular 02/2013 (The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development). I have attached a link to the circular for your convenience.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237412/dft-circular-strategic-road.pdf

In the case of Brentwood, this relates directly to the A12 and M25. As a highway authority, part of our role is to facilitate development by accommodating development led traffic on the strategic network where and when it is possible to do so. We do however need to balance this duty with the need to protect the performance of the road network for other road users. We would be concerned if any material increase in queues, delays or safety issues were to occur on these sections of the SRN as a result of development without careful consideration of mitigation measures. To this end we work actively with developers and local authorities throughout the planning process to ensure that appropriate outcomes are achieved within suitable timescales.

We have examined the consultation material and have the following comments

Strategic Growth Options Consultation

The consultation essentially outlines four spatial growth options

Centralised (Brentwood town based)
Transport corridors and Brentwood town
Semi-dispersed
Dispersed

Given our role described above we do not have any preferences in terms of growth locations, but Paragraph 16 of the above circular states that development should be promoted at locations that are or can be made sustainable (consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)). At the present time, without a transport assessment it is difficult to establish if or where there will be increased pressure on the transport network. In previous months we have consulted with you about the approach to any forthcoming transport assessment of preferred development options and are content at the present time that a forthcoming transport assessment will identify road transport impacts.

To help inform your preferred growth strategy we are more concerned with the M25 end of the SRN, particularly Junction 28 that experiences congestion queues and delays in peak periods. By the horizon year of your emerging Local Plan we would expect additional pressures on the junction through traffic growth both from Brentwood and elsewhere. M25 Junction 29 by comparison is relatively underutilised.

We note that there are sites for both housing and employment located adjacent to or in close proximity to the SRN, in particular the A12 but also the M25. Additionally a potential park and ride site has been identified between the A12 and A1023 Chelmsford Road junction. Paragraph 39 of the above circular states that new accesses onto the SRN may be identified and developed within the local Plan where it is essential for the delivery of strategic planned growth, otherwise no new accesses will normally be permitted to the high speed SRN. Any new accesses will need to conform to prevailing design standards (DMRB) and meet stringent safety requirements prior to the Agency being able to support such measures.

Note that for your Local plan we would only examine the transport impact of development without planning consent as opposed to all Local Plan development.

Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation

We note the location of Dunton Garden Suburb in relation to the SRN, in particular the M25 Junction 29. Given that the site would effectively form a suburb of Basildon there is the potential for transport synergy and opportunities to develop a sustainable community alongside an existing and expanded employment base with access to public transport (road and rail) and the opportunity to manage demand with the provision of further local services. We would stress the need to integrate and strengthen the transport links with the adjoining urban area and to consider measures required to manage down private motorised transport of future occupants should the site be included within the emerging Local Plan.

Please also see comments above in relation to the Strategic Growth Options Consultation that equally apply to the Dunton site and consultation.

I hope that you find these comments useful. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you require any further information

See attached letter and supporting documents.

See attached letter and supporting documents.

I live near by the area proposed for development as the Dunton Garden Suburb. This is an area of greenbelt, and it is there to protect us against urban sprawl, and is supposed to be protected in law. There is inadequate infrastructure in the area to cope with additional housing, and the A127 is far from adequate at dealing with the current number of users along the A127 corridor, without addition strain. Any building work, if it were to go ahead, would destroy the limited open space we have. Any improved infrastructure (ie. widened A127) would increase the loss of land.

Please find attached my completed consultation questionaire for the Strategic Growth Options Consultation.
I support the principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework for the protection of the Green Belt to prevent urban creep.
I strongly oppose inappropriate development in the green belt except in exceptional circumstances where the benefits clearly outweigh the harm and we also support the view that housing need alone does not constitute exceptional benefit.
However, I acknowledge the challenge that the Strategic Housing Allocation numbers present to Brentwood Borough Council. I recognise that without clear locations for the necessary houses identified by the Strategic Housing Allocation, Brentwood Borough Council will be highly unlikely to have a robust Local Development Plan approved. That presents the risk of aggressive speculative developers attempting to obtain planning approval anywhere in the borough and that the appeals system could result in inappropriate and poorly coordinated development taking place.
Thus in the unfortunate circumstance where Green Belt does have to be sacrificed in order to meet the statutory obligations of the Strategic Housing Allocation it is essential that only the minimum amount of land is sacrificed and that this is done in locations and in such a way that harm and urban creep is kept to an absolute minimum.
All my responses to the questions in the consultation must be viewed in this light.

Q1: Yes - The Borough logically splits itself into three identified areas, which are of different character. The Borough contains two main infrastructure corridors, with more rural villages to the north and each area provides different development opportunities. The growth figure of 5,500 dwellings for the next 15 years is supported, however it is considered optimistic that 2,500 dwellings will come from the brownfield sites within the urban area.

Q2: Yes - These representations concern the A127 Corridor and it is considered that the issues raised in relation to this area are correct.

Q3: Yes - As stated within Question 1, the growth figure of 5,500 dwellings for the next 15 years is supported, however it is considered optimistic that 2,500 dwellings will come from the brownfield sites within the urban area.

It is evident therefore, that some Green Belt land will have to be released in order to meet the objectively assessed target. As a result, it is recommended that a detailed review of Green Belt boundaries is undertaken. Over the years a number of anomalies have been created by inept drawing of the Green Belt boundaries. There are quite a few examples, for instance, of the Green Belt boundary cutting across the middle of a residential curtilage or wrapping around a single site. This makes no sense at all, and should be corrected.

The Green Belt boundary should be established on a strong defensible line. This should be a clearly defined and reasonably permanent physical feature in the landscape, such as a river, road or railway. Drawing the boundary across the middle of fields or gardens is totally unsatisfactory and even field boundaries may not be sufficiently permanent to form a reliable long-term boundary. At the very least, the Green Belt boundary should exclude existing residential development (except, where acknowledged, the Green Belt 'washes over' the entire village) and this exclusion must extend to the whole of the residential curtilage. What is required is not a straight line but a clearly defined and readily defensible boundary.

The Council should follow a hierarchical approach to identifying land to meet residential need, along the following lines:
1. Existing urban areas
2. Existing developed sites in Green Belt
3. Review of Green Belt boundaries to ensure consistency with para 84 and 85 NPPG guidance. Boundaries to follow clear, recognisable, physical features and Green Belt not to include land which is unnecessary to keep open (such as land surrounded by development or which is part of a village).
4. Release of sites on the edge of existing settlements.
5. New settlements (Dutton Garden Suburb).

It is only by following a hierarchical approach, and analysing the impact of the Green Belt at each stage, that the Council can assure itself that the overall impact of the Green Belt will be minimised.

If this analysis justifies the release of the Dunton Garden Suburb then (for the reasons that we indicate in the following question) it is very unlikely that it will make any contribution to current 5 year housing supply or that will be built out in this Local Plan period. It is an allocation that will cover two Local Plan periods and the Council will therefore need to allocate additional land in this Local Plan.

LAND SOUTH OF EAST HORNDON HALL
Concern is raised at the prospect of the West Horndon strategic allocations, particularly in regard to the development on employment sites. Whilst the development of those sites is supported, the Council must ensure that sufficient employment land is brought forward alongside the allocation of these sites to ensure that employment is not lost in the Borough. The existing, undesignated, land at East Horndon Hall is ideally suited to provide additional employment land to accommodate those lost through brownfield redevelopment.

FAIRVIEW, MAGPIE LANE
We would like as part of this submission to confirm support for the allocation of a parcel of land at Fairview, Magpie Lane, Brentwood. (see attached Site Location Plan). The site would fall within criteria 2 of the above approach to identifying land. The site is a brownfield site and is harmful to character and visual amenity in its locality. It is predominantly used as a waste transfer station and generates excessive heavy goods vehicle traffic on the local rural road network. The allocation of the site for residential use possibly with a small element of appropriate employment space would improve local amenity and provide resources to relocate the business.

A preliminary assessment indicates that up to 25 dwellings of range of sizes and tenures could be accommodated on the site, helping meet local housing need and improving the character and appearance of the area.

CHITRAL, SWALLOWS CROSS
We would like as part of this submission to confirm support for the allocation of a parcel of land at Chitral, Swallows Cross, Brentwood (see attached Site Location Plan). The site would fall within criteria 2 of the above approach to identifying land. The site is a brownfield site and is harmful to character and visual amenity in its locality

Our client has prepared a masterplan study including an indicative layout, indicative elevations and perspectives to demonstrate an appropriate formof development that can be achieved on this site. The proposals also show the provision of some employment space for local rural businesses The site delivers a range of planning benefits including providing towards housing need, making efficient use of a brownfield site and improving visual amenity . The preliminary proposals indicates approximately 20 houses and 2 commercial units.



Q4: The focus of this submission is centred on the A12 Corridor. However, proposals for development at West Horndon are supported, in principle. Questions continue to be raised regarding viability, sustainability and deliverability of these sites and whether there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that they could come forward within the plan period.

Representations will be made separately to the Dunton Garden Suburb Consultation; however it is considered that this development fails in four of the five purposes of the Green Belt (Paragraph 80 of the NPPF). Such a suburb would: -
* Encourage the sprawl of large built-up areas (Basildon/Laindon);
* Potentially merge Laindon with East Horndon and West Horndon. Laindon itself is already merged with Basildon
* Further encroaches upon the countryside, creating a continuous stretch of development on the southern side of the A127, running from Nevendon to the A128.
* Failing to encourage the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Questions are also raised over the deliverability of The Dunton Garden Suburb. Basildon Borough Council's Local Plan process has been set back, with the Council not expecting adoption until late 2018. Brentwood Borough Council will not be able to adopt their cross-boundary Development Plan Document until it is agreed and adopted by Basildon Borough Council. The proposals do not provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the deliverability of such a scheme and whether there is reasonable prospect of the full delivery of 2,500 dwellings within the 15 year period.

Q5: Yes - As part of the review of the existing Green Belt boundaries, development on sites on the edge of urban areas within the A12 corridor is supported.

Q6: It is appropriate to consider brownfield sites within villages, on the edge of villages and within smaller hamlets for development to meet housing need. Whilst less sustainable than town centre development such schemes can contribute to housing supply for local rural needs and affordable housing. Greenfield sites in sustainable locations are likely to need to be considered for development even after appropriate brownfield sites are developed.

It is questioned as to the extent of brownfield land available within villages. Given currently Green Belt restrictions, most of that land which was previously in brownfield use is likely to have been considered for development (under Paragraph 89 of the NPPF, an exception to inappropriate development is the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt). The brownfield land that is available within the Green Belt is generally found in more unsustainable locations outside of village boundaries. As a result, it is considered that, if in more suitable locations, Greenfield sites on the edge of villages should be considered.

Q7: Yes - It is a logical decision to seek to allocated employment sites close to the strategic highway network and away from the higher populated areas of residential development. The site to the south of East Horndon Hall meets those requirements, being located on the junction of the A127 and A128. The land is currently partly used for industrial purposes, however there is potential for the land to the south to also be considered for employment use.

An Indicative Masterplan has been prepared together with a Highway Feasibility Summary (both attached), demonstrating that a mixed employment development of up to approximately 21 acres and potentially 34,000 sq m of new employment floorspace can be accommodated within the constraints of imposed by the highway and junction capacities.

The range of uses suggested is predominantly B1 light industrial uses, with elements of B2 and B8 use incorporated.

The proposals provide an opportunity to regulate the existing industrial uses and, whilst the site is heavily screened from the west and north, further landscaping and planting can be provided to create a buffer between the site and the A128.

The site is in a highly sustainable location in terms of highway networks, being located adjacent to the roundabout with the A127 and A128, with direct links to the M25, Brentwood, Thurrock and east Essex.

Furthermore, with the potential proposed allocation for housing within West Horndon, replacing the existing employment land, this site is ideally located for an increase in employment numbers resulting from the additional housing.

Given the lawful uses of the northern element of the site, the condition of the land, the containment around primary roads and the existing screening, the site currently makes only a minor contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt as set out in paragraph 80 of the NPPF.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - No further comment.

Q12: Yes - No further comment.

Q13: No comment.