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 area to the north of Brentwood and it is considered that the issues raised in regard 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 Dutton 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.
We would like as part of this submission to confirm support for the allocation of the Joy Fook Restaurant, which sits adjacent to Bentley Golf Club, in Kelvedon Hatch (see attached Site Location Plan). The site would fall within criteria 2 of the above approach to identifying land.

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 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 - No further comment.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - No further comment.

Q12: Yes - No further comment.

Q13: No comment.

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 area to the north of Brentwood and it is considered that the issues raised in regard 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 Dutton 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.
We would like as part of this submission to confirm support for the allocation of the land to the south of #, Mascalls Lane, Great Warley (see attached Site Location Plan). The site would fall within criteria 3 of the above approach to identifying land.

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 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 - No further comment.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - No further comment.

Q12: Yes - No further comment.

Q13: No comment.

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 area to the north of Brentwood and it is considered that the issues raised in regard 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 Dutton 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.
We would like as part of this submission to confirm support for the allocation of land adjacent to 365 Roman Road, Mountnessing (see attached site location plan), which would fall within criteria 3 of the above approach to identifying land.

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 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 - No further comment.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - No further comment.

Q12: Yes - No further comment.

Q13: No comment.

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 area to the north of Brentwood and it is considered that the issues raised in regard 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 Dutton 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.
We would like as part of this submission to confirm support for the allocation of land to the west of Heathlands, School Road, Kelvedon Hatch (see attached Site Location Plan), which would fall within criteria 3 of the above approach to identifying land.

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 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 - No further comment.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - No further comment.

Q12: Yes - No further comment.

Q13: No comment.

Q1: Yes - The Borough logically splits itself into three identified areas, which are also of
different character. It is sensible to look at the main infrastructure corridors as
individual areas. In particular to identify the central A12 Corridor as this includes the
main settlements of Brentwood and Shenfield and which is favourable in
sustainability terms.
Q2: Yes and No - There is the implied suggestion in Paragraph 2.17 that development opportunities will only be considered alongside opportunities surrounding the urban area within the Green Belt. As the main centres are the most sensible and sustainable to focus development the LPA should look at all sites including greenfield within the urban area, as well as the urban edges.

Q3: Yes - There are a number of urban edge sites in sustainable locations which will be logical rounding off or infill within the Green Belt, which will make good housing sites, contributing to the relevant small local communities as well as indirectly established community facilities.

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 Dutton 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.

Q4: The focus of this submission is centred on the A12 Corridor and key housing sites. This firm makes representations on other employment issues in separate representations.

Q5: Yes - See comments under Q3 above. Having looked within the urban areas at all potential sites it is sensible and in accordance with the NPPF to consider releasing sites on the edge of urban areas within this corridor. It is evidenced from the housing needs data that the LPA will need to consider the long term need of the
Borough and release sustainable edge of urban area sites, as well as any longer term strategic releases.

Q6: These comments have been directed to the main urban area.

Q7: Yes - Employment comments have been made in separate representations but we would consider that the most sustainable approach is to allocate new sites close to the strategic highway network and provide a wide choice of sites.

Q8: Yes - No further comment.

Q9: Yes - There are opportunities to take a more pragmatic approach to open space to ensure deliverability of some space for public use where none currently exists.

Q12: Yes - No comment.

Q13: No comment.

See attached.

see attached

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached document

See attached document

See attached.

See attached.

see attached

See attached.

The Kelvedon Hatch Parish Council discussed the Local Plan at both our January and February Council Meetings held on the 8th and 12th respectively. We have a series of observations to make.

In general we accept that more residential and employment sites are required over the next few decades, but would still prefer to protect the Green Belt where ever possible in line with the new NPPF guidance. We would favour development within "brown field" sites where previously green or agricultural activities have not been carried out for some time. We felt that of the four options given on page 11 of the Consultation Document either Nos. 3 or 4 would be preferable in order that "the pain was to be shared out more equally".

With particular reference to our parish of Kelvedon Hatch we realise that "brown field" development opportunities are very limited and nearly all the suggested sites given within the appendix on page 43 lie within the Green Belt. In general we felt that the preferable sites should be limited to the "in-fill" sites round the ragged development curtilege of the village itself. The most acceptable sites being those with three sides of attachment, reducing to two sides as less acceptable and with only one side or totally separated as least acceptable. We prefer infill sites as this is in agreement with the new NPPF guidance on Green Belt considerations.

Without going into consideration of each individual suggested site for our parish some examples would illustrate. The number of each site is as given in your appendix 2 for the Brizes and Doddinghurst Ward. Examples of more acceptable in-fill sites are 066, 168, 182, 194, 075 and 217. Although site 182, land adjacent to Heathlands, School Road, has recently been refused permission by the Borough Council, but it is still at appeal with the Inspectorate. Land to the rear of the Spinney, School Road (site 139) has been refused permission by the Borough Council and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Inspectorate. We would also like to point out that Woodlands, School Road (site 009) is privately owned, within the development envelope of the village and was the subject of an uproar within the village at the presentation of the earlier consultation in 2013. This was due to the fact that the first the owners had heard about their "redevelopment" was from the Brentwood Gazette. At the meeting the owners were reassured by the Borough Council Officers stating that no compulsory purchases were to be made.

Least acceptable sites are those such as 201, GT004, GT013 and those isolated areas to the south of the village such as 191, 221 and 210. A possible site that has yet to be included, which has more of an appropriate in-fill aspect is land to the west of Ongar Road between the Whitehouse (already granted planning permission, but with stringent conditions attached with regard to land decontamination) and Fairview. Ownership of this land would have to be established, but the land is in a neglected condition and has been so for many decades. Whilst the above examples are by no means a definitive list they give a flavour of the Parish Councils deliberations. In the fullness of time we would appreciate being consulted on each individual site that the Authority chooses to recommend if any at all.

The Consultation also requested our views on the proposed Dunton Garden Suburb. Much was made of the fact that we should not deign to comment on someone else's patch, however, it was noted that much of the area was brown field and also that the relevant Parish Council has been reported in the local press as having reluctantly agreed to the proposal after reassurances were made about suitable infrastructures considerations and improvements. It was also observed that such a large development would relieve pressure on the rest of the borough. It was felt that the Parish Council should be in favour of the Garden Suburb. In all these discussions mention was made of the need to properly assess and provide upgrades to the required infrastructure for any developments within the Borough. This would include all services such as sewerage, electricity, gas, internet as well as roads, cycle paths and pavements. Considerations should also be made with regard to schools and medical service provision. Such upgrades would of course be part of the developer's conditions in order not to overload, any further, the existing services.

The Parish Council hopes that these views will be helpful to the consultation and we would appreciate receiving the results and any further decisions by the Borough Council on the Local Plan.

See attached.

Q1: No. The A12 Corridor seems to have been overlooked for development potential, and a large emphasis put on the A127 Corridor.

Q2: No. With the development of housing further down the A127 towards Southend, road and rail services are already running at capacity. Road noise now starts at 4am not 5am anymore.

Q3: To sustain even a moderate level of growth to West Horndon more upgrading of amenities would need to occur (i.e. schools, railway and dangerous junctions for a start).

Q4: Although Dunton Garden Suburb is a preferred location it seems there is a need to force a rail franchise to build a new station. Given the financial constraint on them I doubt this is possible.

Q5: Yes. As there are several hamlets to the north of Brentwood there could be gradual developments of these linking to Ongar Station and the A12 with new A-roads developed.

Q6: Brownfield sites are always preferable, but better access to the A416 and linking the hamlets would give a more sustainable solution and reduce impact on the community.

Q7: Yes. The road network to the A12 has to be developed.

Q8: Yes. Better transport networks need to be put in place to rural areas.

Q9: Yes. A footbridge across the A127 would greatly improve aces for families.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 3

Q11: Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 3
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes. At present cars from Laindon, Basildon are parked in West Horndon Station which is at full capacity. The Garden Suburb could turn West Horndon into a massive car park.

Q13: Improved rail (the Council have no control over). Improved roads (the Council have no control over). Improved health (the Council have no control over). Improved schools (need new built to accommodate additions). Improved communications (at present no upgrade).

With Councils along the A127 Corridor having the same problems a solution to develop the A12 Corridor would seem a more sensible option, especially now with Crossrail development.

See attached

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes - Infrastructure important to cater for this growth, transport, schools etc Dunton provides good scope for this to be developed.

Q4: Dunton Garden Suburb.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: No, more built up urban areas will provide better sustainability and opportunity to grow a better community.

Q7: Yes - Transport links are important to a developed area.

Q8: Yes providing local job opportunities.

Q9: No - We enjoy the open space provision that we have within our area all of which are used fully by the community although no more council money to expend upon.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty/ Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation/ Leisure Use: 4
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 4
Commercial/ Industrial buildings: 2
Nature Reserves/ Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 3
Degraded/ Derelict/ Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 1
Leisure/ Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: No.

Q13: Schools, hospitals/ doctors, transport, leisure.

Q1: Yes.

Q2: No. Traffic on A127 at capacity (during rush hour extremely busy). There is not much room for expansion on A127, but the A12 could provide more room for widening. The flooding issue is a priority for improvement.

Q3: Yes. Sites 020 [West Horndon Industrial Estate, Childerditch Lane] and 021 [Horndon Industrial Estate, Station Lane] - industrial sites seem to be the only appropriate areas for development. The greenfield sites are not appropriate. We who live in this village (us for 46 years) want a village environment to remain.

Q4: Site 200 [Land East of A128, South of A127]

Sites 020 [West Horndon Industrial Estate, Childerditch Lane] and 021 [Horndon Industrial Estate, Station Lane]

Consider the clay soil re flooding.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: Develop brownfield sites. Developing greenfield sites around West Horndon would be detrimental in so many ways.

Q7: Yes. Public transport will possibly be required to a greater extent than now - especially buses.

Q8: Yes. See comment above re buses [Rep ID 8495: "Public transport will possibly be required to a greater extent than now - especially buses."]

Q9: Yes. Improvement on recreational field/park in Cadogan Avenue. If the school needs enlargement there is scope in the small area adjacent to the school behind the houses in Cadogan Avenue and Thorndon Avenue.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 3
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 3
Historic Interest: 3
Tranquility: 4
Other - Sense of community: 4

Q11: Houses: 4
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 2
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 4
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 4
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes. The infrastructure, i.e. roads, school capacity, extra stopping trains, more doctors surgeries, to mention a few, needs to be completed or started and though about first before anything else.

Q13: All community facilities should be prioritised. This is an all or nothing situation. Will this have an impact on Council Tax?

Q1: Yes.

Q2: Yes.

Q3: Yes. Blackmore is not suitable for any development with the facilities that are already here, school etc. The A127 Corridor has far more potential.

Q4: A127 Corridor, Dunton Garden Suburb would seem to be the best option.

Q5: Yes.

Q6: As far as villages are concerned, no greenfield sites should be developed only brownfield.

Q7: Yes.

Q8: Yes. Protect the High Streets.

Q9: No.

Q10: Scenic Beauty Attractiveness: 5
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 5
Wildlife Interest: 4
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11: Houses: 2
Commercial / Industrial Buildings: 2
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 3
Degraded / Derelict / Waste Land: 1
Infrastructure: 2
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 4

Q12: Yes.

Q13: State of footpaths in Blackmore are an absolute disgrace.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

See attached

Q1: Yes - Splitting the borough into three areas of North, A12 Corridor and A127 Corridor would appear to make sense given the different characteristics of these areas.

Q2: No - Road and Rail infrastructure in the A127 Corridor is already over capacity during the rush hour. There would appear to be little scope to widen the road as new houses have already been built to the edge of the A127 whereas the A12 could potentially be expanded in a number of areas. The consultation document also implies that the A127 has greater development potential due to it having a "different landscape character". Whilst it does indeed have a different landscape character to say the North of the Borough, the local residents' value of the open space and farmland should not be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland should be considered any lower than residents of the North of the Borough. The open fenland landscape is valued extremely highly by local resident and contributes to an open rural feel to this area and local settlements. Flood risk is not addressed for any of the sites and it is clearly a major problem in the A127 Corridor and needs to be fully assessed prior to any decisions being made.

Q3: Yes - 020 and 021 are already in the 5 year land supply and are brownfield sites that could be developed. If the proposed 500 dwellings were to go ahead this could almost double the size of West Horndon village and would require major improvements to the infrastructure, including, roads, school, health care and public transport, as the current infrastructure would be inadequate to cope with the proposed new dwellings.

037A, B and C, 038A and B and 126 are all Greenbelt sites, development of these would change the existing West Horndon village beyond recognition putting a strain on residents and infrastructure. In addition the consultation document makes no reference to the major flooding problems that would occur if development took place on any of these sites.

200 I would support the Dunton Garden Suburb Site to provide the required housing level within the Borough, providing that the West Horndon community is safeguarded in an appropriate manner with a regard to infrastructure and a sufficient buffer of land maintained going forward.

Q4: I would question this statement that there is greater capacity for the A127 as opposed to the A12. Site 200, Dunton Garden Suburb, would create the least harm I believe. If it was undertaken in a sensitive manner site 200 has the potential to provide Brentwood Council with the required level of residential development, whilst creating a self-sufficient sustainable development with access to a level of infrastructure funding that would offer the best chance for a positive outcome for existing and new residents of the A127 Corridor. Whilst site 200 would be our preferred option, an appropriate buffer zone needs to be incorporated on the western edge of the development up to the A128 to prevent future urban creep and minimize the impact of development on existing residents. Development of the land immediately adjacent to the village would destroy the current village environment. In addition, Brentwood Borough Council must use the duty to cooperate to negotiate with other authorities to prevent development taking place in Thurrock to the south of West Horndon. Such development would also cause harm similar to that identified for sites 037, 038 and 126.

Q5: Yes - Given the level of projected housing needed with the Borough, the A12 Corridor has the ability to meet a significant portion of the increased housing needs and suitable sites should be included in any spatial strategy.

Q6: Where there are available, suitable sites, brownfield should always be considered above Greenfield sites. There may be instances where the release of small amounts of Green Belt land around villages provides opportunities for these villages to grow in a sustainable manner. However, this should only be considered once brownfield options have been exhausted and where the development would create a positive and balanced impact on the community. Releasing all of the Green Belt land around West Horndon village for example would not create a positive or balanced impact on to the existing community. There may be some isolated instances where limited development in the Green Belt provides benefits which exceed the harm they cause. e.g. in West Horndon the current access to the park is limited. A small amount of development which improves the access is an example of such a possible development.

Q7: Yes - With the industrial estates at West Horndon expected to be developed for primary residential development it is imperative that replacement employment opportunities are provided within the A127 Corridor, which should be accessible via public transport as well as road.

Q8: Yes - Apart from the need for local shops in villages, primary shopping locations should be focused within Town Centres. However, Town Centre First retail development should be preceded by both reliable and regular public transport links to all, including the more rural locations, car parking facilities and road network improvements.

Q9 Yes - West Horndon village currently benefits from a small community park. As part of any potential future development both within the village and the Dunton Garden Suburb there is significant opportunities to enhance this park from a facilities and access perspective.

Q10:
Scenic Beauty / Attractiveness: 4
Outdoor Recreation / Leisure Use: 3
Wildlife Interest: 5
Historic Interest: 4
Tranquility: 5

Q11:
Houses: 3
Commercial / Industrial buildings: 3
Nature Reserves / Wildlife: 3
Farmland: 4
Woodland: 2
Degraded / Derelict / Waste land: 1
Infrastructure: 3
Leisure / Recreation Facilities: 2

Q12: Yes - Development must not increase the challenges to the borough's infrastructure i.e. it must be small enough not to create a significant demand on current infrastructure or big enough to generate money to create/improve infrastructure to meet the new need. Whilst transport is considered, the focus appears to be on Crossrail and links to Brentwood Town Centre. Although important, given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, a completely fresh transport strategy needs to be developed for this area. This will need to consider both the impact of Brentwood and Basildon's development along the Shoeburyness to Fenchurch Street rail line and other local councils looking to develop along this line as well (significant knock-on impact that may not be considered by looking at just Brentwood and Basildon's plans alone). It also needs to consider how residents of the Dunton Garden Suburb (ifdeveloped) travel to West Horndon, Laindon and Basildon and how West Horndon village residents travel to the Dunton Garden Suburb, Brentwood and Basildon town centres. The transport strategy will also need to incorporate regular public transport to local employment locations given the potential redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial estates. From a road perspective, the consultation document focuses heavily on the A12 and A127. However, the A128 links these two roads and importantly links the south of the Borough to Brentwood Town Centre (including related infrastructure, importantly, secondary schools). Any development within the A127 or A12 corridors will need to consider how to alleviate what will become intolerable strain on this specific road. In addition to transport, education, healthcare, community facilities and green infrastructure are all identified as significant infrastructure considerations. The detail on these within the consultation document is limited and significantly more detail will be necessary to ensure future development is carried out sustainably. Timing of infrastructure needs to have a stronger focus than currently seen in the consultation. Given the scale of potential development within the A127 Corridor, supporting infrastructure needs to be in place first, to prevent a significant and materially negative impact on existing residents. This will also ensure that any new development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.

Q13: Given the scale of development proposed within the A127 Corridor, whilst there will be priorities the development will require infrastructure spending across all categories (education, healthcare, transport, green space and community facilities etc.) and is of paramount importance, failure to provide any one element of infrastructure will have a materially negative impact on both the existing residents and new development. As such, whilst there may be priorities in areas where development is expected to be lower/less significant, in areas expected to see high levels of development, a holistic infrastructure plan needs to be delivered to ensure development is undertaken in a sustainable manner.