I live on the Ongar Road near Brentwood town centre and my main concern is to avoid any additional burden on the existing roads within the town centre. The Ongar Road is very heavily used already and with houses close to the road there is an impact on the fabric of the houses - an increase in traffic, particularly Heavy Goods Vehicles, of which there are already a lot, would be further detrimental.

I'm very supportive of a sustainable transport plan, and would be particularly keen to see improved facilities for cyclists. I cycle to Shenfield station to commute to London and find that road maintenance is an issue - e.g. the edge of the road does not provide a safe, smooth pathway for cyclists. It is noticeable how few people cycle in Brentwood and Shenfield so anything the council can do to promote cycling, including by making it easier through dedicated routes, would be a real positive.

Cycle routes must be contiuous. There is no point in a cycle route that just stops when further development becomes inconvenient and then starts again when it becomes convenient again. Cycle routes, to be safe, need a separate lane with physical separation from cars. Consideration should be given to routes not next to roads.
An integrated policy is required. For example, all bus routes should be part of the Plusbus network. The notable exception here of the 81 and 82 routes prevents Brentwood and Shenfield from being properly joined up.
Is it worth considering a "Boris bikes" type scheme at our rail stations?

Council decisions regarding plans that don't adhere to parking provision as laid out in the Local Plan are overturned by the Planning Inspector. To prevent this in the future all such plans must have thorough assessment of the area by Essex CC Highways Officer and this assessment must match that of local planning officers.

Transport cannot be properly "joined up" when individual suppliers have their own interests at heart and not those of the local community. Buses need to operate with increased frequency to increase usage. To have one bus linking Brentwood and Shenfield that runs hourly outside of rush hour explains the size of the taxi rank at Shenfield station. There is clearly a need for transport links but this is not being met by the local bus providers.
It should be possible to hop on a bus in Brentwood and buy a ticket that will take the customer to Bank station via Shenfield and back using bus, rail and tube. This is not possible because systems are not joined up.
Smaller, more frequent shuttles are required outside of rush hour but the Council can't affect that change because they have no influence.
Ensign should be a part of the Plusbus ticketing system but the Council is impotent because of lack of influence.
We have a disparate transport policy that serves private enterprise instead of the local community.
The cost of transport in the Borough is another limiting factor that constrains use of bus and rail.

A separate cycle path between Shenfield and Brentwood, allowing cyclists not to have to ride on the busy Chelmsford Rd & Priests Lane is badly needed

Thorndon Guardians support the aim of encouraging "active travel" (walking and cycling) to destinations including Thorndon Park. "Green Travel" routes (Figure 3.3) should include access from Brentwood Town Centre to Thorndon Park. This would also support DM31 which refers to accessible and convenient access to open space.

This area would be the most suitable in the borough for a park and ride service for both Brentwood and Shenfield. The site could be used for this purpose in conjunction with the other uses suggested in the Plan. This is an opportunity that cannot afford to be missed. The Alexander Lane option for park and stride to support the Crossrail project is a bad idea and will be uselees in winter and on wet/windy /cold/ dark days, nor will it be suitable for the less able traveller.

I have one specific comment to make on the Development Plan. I am astonished to find no reference whatsoever to "Crossrail", which is without doubt going to be the biggest thing to happen to the Borough in the next decade (and beyond). Even if the project is still to be finalised, I would have thought that the Council must be planning to ensure that (a) its implementation is undertaken with the minimum inconvenience to the residents, and the minimum cost to the Borough, and (b) that we capitalise on the undoubted advantages the scheme ought to have for us, for instance by attracting business/commerce to the area who will benefit from the access it will provide, and increasing the ease by which people can reach Brentwood and Shenfield in particular, for example to use the facilities we have to offer for sport and leisure as well as other possibilities.

As an aside, by the way,I believe that the logical eastern terminus for "Crossrail" should (eventually) be Chelmsford - not Shenfield - bringing its benefits to our flourishing county town - and that, therefore, the Council should bear in mind, and actively pursue the possibilities of later phases of the project.

I would like to start by saying that I neither support nor oppose the Park and Walk scheme. The reason for this being that I have been unable to find out any information about the exact location of the proposed site, I am therefore unable to make an informed choice. I am immensely frustrated that the most information I find out about the scheme is via the Brentwood Gazette.

I have been told on numerous occasions by a member of the council that the exact location of the site is not important in making a decision about Park and Walk. When in fact the location should be an intrinsic part of an informed decision. Which leads me to my next point. The diagram figure 3.4 shows the proposed site as a very large parcel of land somewhere in between Chelmsford road and Alexander Lane. As it stands, the map does not mention the fact that some of this land is greenbelt, that there is a school playing field in close proximity and merely depicts Shenfield High School as an 'urban area'. This map is entirely misleading. Given the large area shown, its mixed usage, categorisation (in terms of greenbelt/brownfield), the varying distances from the station and access issues to and from different points of Chelmsford Road and Alexander Lane on foot and by car; it is impossible not to take these 'considerations' into account prior to choosing the site.

One of my biggest concerns is the extra flow of traffic and it's management on Chelmsford Road. Chelmsford Road is a very busy road, even more so at peak times, when the commuting public are most likely to be using the car park. What extra traffic measures would be put in place to ease the flow? Whilst this may not be a problem when people are turning into the proposed car park from the A12, exiting right to return to the A12 would mean a queue of cars waiting to exit onto a busy road or traffic lights/roundabout holding traffic back down Chelmsford Road in both directions. As it stands the traffic comes to a slow crawl as soon as there is an incident on the A12 heading west-bound whilst people exit the A12 and cut through Shenfield and Brentwood. Have any thoughts been given to how the road will support the extra traffic in the case of such incidents?

The proposal also mentions a time of 10 minutes to walk to the station. This again is somewhat misleading, as it would depend entirely on the exact location of the car park. If it was on one of the fields adjoining Alexander Lane then this would be a reasonable time, however if it were another area it could take 15 to 20 minutes. I wonder how many people would want to park in a location where they have to then walk so far to the station?

My proposal would be to change the scheme to a Park and Ride and change the proposed location to the site shown on the map below at the end of Wash Road. I would like to note now that I do not own this land and do not know who does. I believe there is great potential for this site. First and fore mostly because the access would be far easier to control than on Chelmsford Road; traffic could leave the A12 at the Brentwood Bypass and head down Roman Road and turn right onto Lower Road (a far less congested route, which would not be affected by west-bound incidents on the A12). A bus service could then shuttle commuters down Wash Road, onto Rayleigh Road and drop at the station in around 5 minutes. If you wanted to help keep inline with your sustainable transport policy you could offer bikes for hire similar to the scheme in London or encourage commuters to bring their own. (I would however like to point out that there would need to be a marked improvement to the current cycle racks that the council provides as my husband is one of several people I know who have had their bikes stolen due to the poor quality if the racks currently provided, and thieves quite literally ripping them from the ground). A possible way to incentivise this initiative would be to charge commuters for the shuttle service rather than the car park itself. This land is also located next to an industrial estate and therefore would minimise the impact to local residents.

Another potential during the development of this site would be to develop the land between the Brentwood Bypass and Lower Road. This is currently empty and could be used for another petrol/service station. The current BP garage on the Bypass/Chelmsford Road is dangerously busy at times with traffic spilling out onto the bypass and down the slip road of the A12. With any new car park in Shenfield there must be a consideration for a new service station to alleviate the stress on the current one. I have witnessed several accidents at this spot and believe such incidents would increase inline with the increase in traffic.

I understand that a Park and Ride may not sit as well with the sustainable transport policy, however I strongly believe that the site that I have proposed deserves serious consideration. It is far better suited from a traffic and safety perspective and also has the option to include a Park and Ride, albeit on bike not on foot.

See attached

See attached

See Attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

Talking to one of your people at a "Consultation Event" I asked about facilities for cyclists. The reply was that you will look at each development as it comes along.

Surely what is needed is a strategic plan for cyclists in Brentwood i.e. planned routes to enable cyclists to get into the and around Brentwood in relative safety. In other words, not just recreation routes as in Thorndon Country Part but cycling routes to get from A to B in and around Brentwood

I would be interested to hear your response on this

See attached

Thank you for inviting the Highways Agency (HA) to contribute to the Brentwood Local Plan 2015-30 Preferred Options Consultation.

The HA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport (DfT). We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's Strategic Road Network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. In the case of Brentwood we would be concerned with any development that could have an impact on the M25 junctions 28 and 29 and the A12.

The emphasis on the promotion of sustainable transport to reduce the reliance on the car is very much welcomed by the HA and this is an essential part of the Borough's plan moving forward.

It is recognised that the evidence base for understanding the traffic impact of the development proposals is still being developed and the outcomes and results of the traffic modelling will be forthcoming. Whilst having no comment at this stage on the site allocations and the plan in general the HA would expect to see the results of the modelling in order to fully understand any impact on the SRN and any potential mitigation that may be required to facilitate further development within the Borough in the future.

The HA look forward to viewing the further evidence base and the Infrastructure Delivery Planand welcome ongoing consultation to understand the impact on the SRN through the ongoing development of the Borough's Local Plan.

I hope the above comments are useful at this stage.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached response.

Object to:
Primarily - CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area & Supporting Documents
plus the following in connection with impact on West Horndon;
S2: Amount & Distribution of Residential Development
CP3: Strategic Sites 020 / 021 / 037
DM11: New Development in the Green Belt
DM17: Wildlife and Nature Conservation
DM24: Affordable Housing
DM28: Gypsy and Traveller Provision
DM35: Flood Risk
Appendix 3: Housing Trajectory

Comments (please use additional sheet if required):
The Brentwood Borough Local Plan 2015-2030 and supporting documents are in sufficiently detailed with information to justify the disproportionate allocation of 43% of the borough housing requirement and 70% of Gypsy and Traveller pitches to be allocated to the village of West Horndon. These numbers will treble the current size of the village whilst decimating a large area of Green Belt. We as villagers did not receive the promised feedback from the 2011 consultation and previously discounted areas of Greenfield have now been put back into the LDP without explanation despite strong resident opposition to Green Belt development. The character of the village will be irreparably damaged by such a huge development and change our village status to a small town with none of the amenities. I am being expected to make a decision on the future of my neighbourhood with limited information which is wholly unacceptable.

The LDP fails to state how and when the local road, education, health, rail and utility infrastructure will be improved to accommodate such an aggressive development and from where the necessary funding has been secured. It would be irresponsible to proceed without detailed planning for such vital associated services. There is no further rail capacity available and the route does not provide access to our borough. The housing trajectory shows a staged construction of houses yet there is no evidence of a demand for house building in the area as potential sites have been left undeveloped in Station Road and on the Elliott's site for several years. Affordable and social housing is not ideally situated in rural areas such as West Horndon and the new development is unlikely to comprise of properties similar to the family homes that dominate the village demographic. Traffic at its peak causes congestion along Station road when trying to exit onto the already dangerous and packed A128. (numerous accidents have occurred at this junction before and after highways made changes and adding further traffic will raise the risks further )
The LDP gives no consideration to the wider implications from other developments in the vicinity, such as the DP World port and proposed A2 Thames crossing, both of which will dramatically increase traffic in the area and place further burdens on the Borough's infrastructure without the additional traffic from the proposed West Horndon development. There are only two routes into Brentwood from West Horndon (A128 / Warley) and access to the area will be gridlocked.
Green Belt development is designed to halt the sprawl of London and should only be in exceptional cases. In the evidence documents on the BBC website the projected population increase for Brentwood is primarily migratory. I see absolutely no reason why the Green Belt should be threatened by movement of people which, by its very nature, can settle on non green belt locations. The wildlife in the area will be adversely affected by the proposed development on Green Belt and I must question whether investigation has been made into protected species which inhabit the area such as Great Crested Newts as there is no mention in the LDP.
The Environmental Agency lists areas 020, 021 and 037 as being on flood plain as borne out by the most recent flooding incidents in 2012. The village suffers from flooding or near flooding on a regular basis in this area with no plans to remove the risk of further flooding once the development has been started it will only get worse. There is no evidence that this factor has been considered in the LDP and to site traveller and gypsy pitches on a flood plain is unacceptable.
I do not believe that the LDP is sound or robust enough to be considered in its present form and appears to be a rash decision to fulfil government targets. I acknowledge that progress must be made and that some development may be necessary and this should be made in smaller numbers to keep the village in its status. However, much more investigation needs to be undertaken by the council and the views of the community considered in depth before any decisions are made that will affect us in the long term.

See attached

DM23 - I particularly object to the housing development on Land adj. to the Adult Education Centre, Rayleigh Road. As a long term student at the College I find it is difficult to park there on occasions. If 11 dwellings are built on the existing car park it will become impossible to accommodate students' cars in the remaining space. As this is a residential area there is no on-street parking. The College is a valuable local public resource which must not be lost and, I believe, is also a listed building and its appearance & facilities should not be detracted from.

DM38 - The Local Plan has schemes for building on at least 5 existing car parks/garages excluding the proposed William Hunter Way cinema development. Brentwood desperately needs accessible, affordable parking spaces, not a reduction in the number of surface parking areas available.

CP13 - The proposed 'Park & Walk' facility for Crossrail will increase the amount of traffic through Senfield in all directions which becomes congested at time now. If the existing car parks are also redeveloped the traffic flow will be drastically slowed with consequences for air quality etc. (DM33). The bus network in the Brentwood area is woefully inadequate and until this is addressed the target of increasing public transport usage will not be met. With an aging population this should be a priority.

Following on from recent publications for the Local Development Plan 2015 to 2030, I would like the following considered: -

1. The East Ham Estate that is currently owned by Newham Council taken into local ownership by Brentwood Borough Council so as to help alleviate to local housing needs, and to have more local representation politically and financially in maintaining the estate.

2. Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane road drainage improved on the inside corner, so as to improve safety and cornering on this dangerous accident prone bend.

3. Speed ramps installed along Pondfield Lane and Hanging Hill Lane to reduce traffic speed going into the Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane corner to improve road safety.

4. The footpath bridge that goes over the Greater Anglia railway line at Princes Way to Priests Lane requires replacing. It is a bad state of repair, and requires urgent attention.

5. The following road bridges going over the Greater Anglia railway line require regular improved maintenance: -
a. Woodway
b. A128 Ingrave Road.
c. Warley Hill.

6. Increased cycle lane development using the private roads in the Hutton Mount Estate, which would give access of creating cycles from North to South and East to West in Brentwood, Shenfield and the surrounding area.

7. Pedestrian footpaths along the A128 improved in regular maintenance through Herongate, Brentwood, and to the North of Brentwood. Essex Highways do not allocate enough resources to this important public amenity.

8. Responsibility of all roads in the Brentwood Borough Council area taken into local ownership to improve maintenance, safety and appearance.

Following on from recent publications for the Local Development Plan 2015 to 2030, I would like the following considered: -

1. The East Ham Estate that is currently owned by Newham Council taken into local ownership by Brentwood Borough Council so as to help alleviate to local housing needs, and to have more local representation politically and financially in maintaining the estate.

2. Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane road drainage improved on the inside corner, so as to improve safety and cornering on this dangerous accident prone bend.

3. Speed ramps installed along Pondfield Lane and Hanging Hill Lane to reduce traffic speed going into the Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane corner to improve road safety.

4. The footpath bridge that goes over the Greater Anglia railway line at Princes Way to Priests Lane requires replacing. It is a bad state of repair, and requires urgent attention.

5. The following road bridges going over the Greater Anglia railway line require regular improved maintenance: -
a. Woodway
b. A128 Ingrave Road.
c. Warley Hill.

6. Increased cycle lane development using the private roads in the Hutton Mount Estate, which would give access of creating cycles from North to South and East to West in Brentwood, Shenfield and the surrounding area.

7. Pedestrian footpaths along the A128 improved in regular maintenance through Herongate, Brentwood, and to the North of Brentwood. Essex Highways do not allocate enough resources to this important public amenity.

8. Responsibility of all roads in the Brentwood Borough Council area taken into local ownership to improve maintenance, safety and appearance.

Following on from recent publications for the Local Development Plan 2015 to 2030, I would like the following considered: -

1. The East Ham Estate that is currently owned by Newham Council taken into local ownership by Brentwood Borough Council so as to help alleviate to local housing needs, and to have more local representation politically and financially in maintaining the estate.

2. Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane road drainage improved on the inside corner, so as to improve safety and cornering on this dangerous accident prone bend.

3. Speed ramps installed along Pondfield Lane and Hanging Hill Lane to reduce traffic speed going into the Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane corner to improve road safety.

4. The footpath bridge that goes over the Greater Anglia railway line at Princes Way to Priests Lane requires replacing. It is a bad state of repair, and requires urgent attention.

5. The following road bridges going over the Greater Anglia railway line require regular improved maintenance: -
a. Woodway
b. A128 Ingrave Road.
c. Warley Hill.

6. Increased cycle lane development using the private roads in the Hutton Mount Estate, which would give access of creating cycles from North to South and East to West in Brentwood, Shenfield and the surrounding area.

7. Pedestrian footpaths along the A128 improved in regular maintenance through Herongate, Brentwood, and to the North of Brentwood. Essex Highways do not allocate enough resources to this important public amenity.

8. Responsibility of all roads in the Brentwood Borough Council area taken into local ownership to improve maintenance, safety and appearance.

Following on from recent publications for the Local Development Plan 2015 to 2030, I would like the following considered: -

1. The East Ham Estate that is currently owned by Newham Council taken into local ownership by Brentwood Borough Council so as to help alleviate to local housing needs, and to have more local representation politically and financially in maintaining the estate.

2. Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane road drainage improved on the inside corner, so as to improve safety and cornering on this dangerous accident prone bend.

3. Speed ramps installed along Pondfield Lane and Hanging Hill Lane to reduce traffic speed going into the Pondfield Lane/Hanging Hill Lane corner to improve road safety.

4. The footpath bridge that goes over the Greater Anglia railway line at Princes Way to Priests Lane requires replacing. It is a bad state of repair, and requires urgent attention.

5. The following road bridges going over the Greater Anglia railway line require regular improved maintenance: -
a. Woodway
b. A128 Ingrave Road.
c. Warley Hill.

6. Increased cycle lane development using the private roads in the Hutton Mount Estate, which would give access of creating cycles from North to South and East to West in Brentwood, Shenfield and the surrounding area.

7. Pedestrian footpaths along the A128 improved in regular maintenance through Herongate, Brentwood, and to the North of Brentwood. Essex Highways do not allocate enough resources to this important public amenity.

8. Responsibility of all roads in the Brentwood Borough Council area taken into local ownership to improve maintenance, safety and appearance.