see attached

see attached

I am writing to formally register my objection to Brentwoods Strategic Growth Options Consultation, due to the negative impact I believe it will have on the surrounding communities, wildlife, green belt areas and travel routes.

Some of my questions and concerns are as follows:
1. Why is greenbelt land now being considered for declassification in and around the Brentwood & Basildon area?
2. Isn't Green Belt Land protected to stop developments and urban sprawl?
3. What, if any, consideration has been given to the wildlife that will be impacted with such a large scale development on greenbelt land?
3. With such a large scale proposal why hasn't the local communities been properly consulted and informed?
4. Why is it seen that the A127 has a better scope for improvements and expansion than the A12 when nothing has been done to tackle the current congestion level for existing traffic and basics such as straightening out the Fortune of War roundabout as this has been deemed far too expensive for so many years? Widening of the A127 will only consume more Green Belt Land.
5. Why does Brentwood Council appear to favour the majority of its developments at its most extreme of borders affecting towns other than its own?
6. Why is the deadline for this consultation so short when it will affect so many?

I am logging my objection to the above SGO.

Firstly this is precious protected by law greenbelt land, it homes our much needed wildlife. The farmland is equally as precious as it is ancient land. Heron Hall I understand is a listed building? There are no special circumstances to allow building on this greenbelt/ farmbelt.

I cannot believe that you are also considering making both the a127 and a128 busier than they already are. The roads are already gridlocked and dangerous and developing on this land, providing more housing will make matters worse. I also commute to work on my bike each day and have encountered several near misses on both the a127 and a128. The roads are already overpopulated and dangerous and cannot accommodate traffic at present.

There is no infrastructure in place to accommodate these new proposed developments. - primary & secondary schools are already oversubscribed and full to capacity so are doctors surgeries, dentist and local hospitals and other services.

These development plans will de-value current housing in the area and as a homeowner in the village for 20 years I am extremely angry that you are proposing these developments. I live here because I enjoy village life. Let's keep things that way.

I would also like to add that my whole family feel that the whole consultation procedure has been rather underhanded and most residents in the village are uninformed due to the councils negligence to provide important information regarding their surroundings. The questionnaire is completely flawed and the whole local plan appears to be for monetary gain only. The local plan goes against common sense and logic.

Re: Objection to development on green belt


This letter is to state that I categorically object to Brentwood's Strategic Growth Options Consultations and any future development on green belt land.


After only a little research you can see there are large areas of greenbelt around the country that will soon be diminished to make way for housing. This is the whole purpose of the green belt to prevent urban sprawl. I find it astonishing that it has even been suggested for such huge developments.


I believe the deadline for this consultation should be extended as it apparent that not many residents are aware of it and therefore not having the opportunity to object.


I have not been able to do a thorough response as only just been made aware of these proposals.

Re: Objection to development on green belt

This letter is to state that I categorically object to Brentwood's Strategic Growth Options Consultations and any future development on green belt land.

After only a little research you can see there are large areas of greenbelt around the country that will soon be diminished to make way for housing. This is the whole purpose of the green belt to prevent urban sprawl. I find it astonishing that it has even been suggested for such huge developments

I believe the deadline for this consultation should be extended as it apparent that not many residents are aware of it and therefore not having the opportunity to object.

I have not been able to do a thorough response as only just been made aware of these proposals.

This absolutely must not be allowed to go ahead.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would like to voice strong concern with you plans to build housing and other forms of all development around Ingrave, Herongate and Hutton.

I live in Ingrave, we moved here after renting in Herongate for a while. We fell in love with a beautiful and special place, one that gave us village life within react of the M25 and London. this was a dream come true, we have Thorndon Park, which is absolutely wonderful park and fields at the end of our road. I feel safe when I run in the park and I love that know all the names of my neighbours and we look out for each other. I never thought places like this existed.

I grew up in Hackney, when it wasn't trendy, there were murders on my road, fights on our estate and our house was burgled and they tried to set it alight! We ever had people focus themselves in our house when we were in. We weren't allowed to play outside and my parents were forever worrying about me and my sisters. We soon moved to Walthamstow it was a little safer, however I was attacked coming home when I was only 15 and still suffered crimes.

I worked really hard to have my dream home, which I brought with my other half last year and plan to never to leave, we want to have a family and plan to build our life here. I wouldnt want my children to have to deal with what I had to. I now have a choice where I live and what my surroundings are and it would be awful if it was to change.

Please do not develop my area, it is my home & my future.

Also please also take into consideration that mostly older people live in this area and they will not be able to email any objections so more awareness should be implemented to make sure they are fully aware and also have their say.

The residents of Herongate and Ingrave were not adequately consulted about this document. The promised method of newsletters, road shows was definitely not delivered. It is only by accident that the document was stumbled on and shared in the lady 2 weeks by a resident. There has been no effort whatsoever by Brentwood Council to communicate by any method other than Twitter or website. When a deadline extension was requested the answer given was that it would not be convenient for planners!! This has been an abysmal consultation, hardly giving us the chance to comment. Is this a way of getting plans through the back door? Going through the motions of consultation? Very, very poor.

I would like to register my objection to the above proposals under consideration. The land is green belt and should be left undeveloped, therefore, as otherwise Brentwood and its surrounds will turn into a sprawl like any other over developed town, losing its identity and desirability. It will also reduce the enjoyment of living in the area as, at present, the land is a green, pleasant open space with beautiful views and bluebell woods for all to enjoy, not to mention the extensive wildlife including protected species such as bats that inhabit the area.

I would also like to know why the consultation has been so low profile. I knew nothing of these plans until a leaflet by a protester was posted through my letterbox two days ago. I would argue that your deadline of today needs to be extended and that the process of consultation should be more proactive and inclusive.

Please confirm that my objection will be counted and please provide a response to my views on the consultation process.

I object to Brentwoods Strategic Growth Options Consultation because the areas selected are all under greenbelt protection. To build to the extent suggested in these areas, in particular Ingrave and Herongate would cause major congestion on the A128 Brentwood Road, would increase the risk of accidents and possible fatalities on this road. There have already been several accidents involving children on this road, to increase the traffic would result in a death next. The areas surrounding my village of Ingrave is all greenbelt and is therefore protected. My family moved to this village because of the surrounding area and the beauty and quietness that it brings to the community. There is a lot a wildlife in these areas which would be wiped out if building was to take place. To build thousands of properties in this area would turn a beautiful village into another concrete BASILDON which no one in their right mind would or should do.

I would also like to object to the fact that the residents of Ingrave or Herongate have NOT received any information or questionnaires through their doors in respect of these proposals. How can the residents be given a fair chance to put forward their thoughts and objections to something that very few know about. Not all residents have access to the internet or read the papers. It is criminal in the way this has been handled. I would also like to object to the fact that the online questionnaire is difficult to find and also very complicated to follow. I was unable to complete it as I didn't understand the questions!!!

I received a flyer the other day entitled "Save our Green Belt" which says that vast areas of open countryside between Hutton and Ingrave are being considered as options for future housing.

I wasn't aware that a housing development was being considered for this area until this flyer arrived at the weekend so unfortunately don't have the Council's reference

I would however like to register my objection to any large scale building on this green belt land.

My main objection is that any large development would destroy a beautiful area of countryside. When I first moved to my house in Lilian Crescent, it was the views over the back across to Ingrave that swung my decision to move here and because it is green belt land I thought that it was protected land.

The semi rural nature of this area is what I think, makes it such a lovely place to live

I don't think that a large development is right for this particular area. For one thing the roads are already badly congested at certain times of the day and a large development would only make things worse as I assume that if this went ahead the extra residents would have to use the amenities in Brentwood adding to the traffic congestion.

I don't believe that we have the necessary infrastructure to support anything large scale.

see attached

see attached

I am writing in respect of Brentwood Borough's Local Plan Strategic Growth Options published for consultation on the 6 January 2015 on behalf of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning, Cllr Dr. Richard Moore. This consultation coincides with our joint consultation on the Dunton Garden Suburb. The following response by Basildon Borough Council however relates specifically to Brentwood Borough's Local Plan Strategic Growth Options.

General Observations

The Council is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Local Plan Strategic Growth Options, but is unsure of the status of the document and how it will inform the next stage of the Local Plan process. The document focuses on the strategic growth options and specific sites only which suggests that it is a discussion paper which will inform the emerging draft Local Plan. It is also not clear what has informed its preparation, given the absence of key pieces of evidence and an audit trail.

Basildon Borough Council is deeply concerned as a neighbouring Local Planning Authority that the majority of the environmental evidence base, such as Green Infrastructure Study, Landscape Capacity Study, and Surface Water Management Plan are listed in the consultation document as being 'forthcoming'. Similarly the Highways Modelling and Crossrail Economic Impacts Study are also forthcoming which suggests that they have not informed the Strategic Growth Options. Furthermore, Brentwood Borough Council has not undertaken a Green Belt Review, be it partial or full, to inform any future release of Green Belt land as implied possible in the Strategic Growth Options consultation. Basildon Borough Council therefore considers that the Strategic Growth Options paper is premature of a clear appreciation and understanding of the baseline context in Brentwood Borough and the wider Essex area and it is difficult to see how the paper can meaningfully contribute to the debate on the most sustainable growth options available.

In preparing the draft Local Plan, Brentwood Borough Council may want to consider how the findings of all the forthcoming evidence impact on the suitability and deliverability of the growth options and sites identified in this consultation document and on any potential future joint working on the Dunton Garden Suburb proposal. One cannot assume that a site would be more suitable than another, or that one part of the Brentwood Borough could accommodate more growth than another, unless it can be supported by the plan's evidence; regardless of how popular or not a location is with Brentwood's communities. Therefore it is important that any future decisions on the spatial strategy and preferred sites have been informed by all of the evidence base commissioned and not just the Strategic Growth Options paper, even if this means Brentwood Borough Council has to revise and repeat its Strategic Growth Options exercise. To proceed in any other way risks the Local Plan being found unsound and consequently unadoptable.

Basildon Borough Council understands that the identification of sites within the consultation document does not mean these sites will necessarily be allocated in the future however; the Council is unsure just how the sites set out in Figure 8 and Appendix 1 have been identified. There are a number of sites within the list that are not included in the Council's latest Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) October 2011. The assessment of land availability is, according to the Government's Planning Practice Guidance (Ref ID: 3-001-20140306), an important step in the preparation of Local Plans and a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It ensures that all land is assessed together as part of plan preparation to identify which sites or strategic locations are the most suitable and deliverable for a particular use. Brentwood Borough Council should update its SHLAA by undertaking land availability assessments on all the sites listed in Appendix 1 to help inform the emerging draft Local Plan and review this on an annual basis. These assessments must review whether sites are suitable, available and achievable in both planning and viability terms, otherwise they cannot be relied upon to make up Brentwood's development land supply.

Basildon Borough Council is also unclear as to how the open spaces in Figure 15 have been determined and acknowledges that an area of open space is identified in the location of the Dunton Garden Suburb proposal, adjacent to the boundary of Basildon Borough. Whilst it is likely that the publication of the open space, green infrastructure and sports facilities studies will provide a more up-to-date context on this issue; its absence draws into question whether Dunton Garden Suburb as discussed as part of the Duty to Cooperate is feasible. Basildon Borough Council will continue working with Brentwood Borough Council on cross boundary strategic priorities as required by the Localism Act 2011 however shortcomings in the evidence base may affect what can be achieved.

Brentwood Borough Council should also identify and consider reasonable alternatives when developing the Local Plan's spatial strategy, growth options, specific sites and policies to ensure compliance with national policy and Strategic Environmental Assessment legislation. At examination the Council would need to show that the Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, and other legal and procedural requirements, and that it complies with the test of soundness. As stipulated in paragraph 182 of the NPPF, for a Local Plan to be found "sound" it should have been positively prepared, be effective including the plan's deliverability, be consistent with national policy and be justified insofar as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. It is not currently clear from the published evidence how Brentwood Borough Council can demonstrate this.

Question 1 and 2

It is unclear from the information provided why two of the growth areas have been divided in such a way, namely the A12 Corridor and the A127 Corridor. It is not clear why only West Horndon is considered to be the only settlement in the A127 Corridor. Ingrave, Herongate and Great Warley could have been included within the A127 Corridor due to their proximity to the A127 and the transport connections via the A128 and B186.

In the absence of a comprehensive set of evidence, in particular the highways modelling, landscape capacity study and land availability assessments, Basildon Borough Council considers the following statement in paragraph 2.19 to be based on assumptions, which are not supported by evidence and therefore undermine the Strategic Growth Options developed.

"Due to the different character and availability of suitable land the capacity for growth is potentially greater than elsewhere in the Borough. Although the A127 suffers from congestion problems it has more scope for improvements than the A12".

Furthermore is it not clear whether the planned infrastructure investment for the A12 by the Highways Agency and Essex County Council has been considered when comparing the capacity and scope for improvements of these two major highway corridors.

Question 3

Basildon Borough Council considers that it would have been more valuable for this consultation document to have identified and enabled discussion on the principles of growth, rather than considering specific housing sites options in the absence of a comprehensive set of evidence.

Question 4

Basildon Borough Council is concerned over the appropriateness of this question in light of the available evidence. The question makes certain assumptions about the capacity of the A127 Corridor to accommodate growth which is not supported by the plan's existing evidence base as the environmental and infrastructure constraints have not yet been identified. Little weight should be given to responses to this question as the question, as presented, is misleading.

Conclusion

Not withstanding the joint project of the Dunton Garden Suburb proposal that both Councils have been engaged with and presented for public consultation, as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding (November 2014), Basildon Borough Council's responsibilities as a local planning authority for Basildon Borough are not absolved.

Basildon Borough Council is continuing its Local Plan preparation and whilst Policy Areas for Development and Change (PADCs) have been identified there can be no absolute certainty that they will continue to the final version of the Local Plan. Basildon Borough Council's emerging Local Plan is being informed by a robust and credible, but proportionate evidence base and will only be submitted to the Secretary of State when the Council is confident that it has a sound plan, which will be tested by the Planning Inspectorate.

Basildon Borough Council is aware that whilst a comprehensive Green Belt Study has been undertaken for Basildon Borough to inform preferred development locations, no Green Belt Review has yet been undertaken for Brentwood Borough to inform Brentwood Borough Council's site selection and assess the suitability of the potential Green Belt development including the proposal at Dunton Garden Suburb.

Whilst Basildon Borough Council welcomes further engagement with Brentwood Borough to ensure that the points raised in this response are addressed and to continue working together on cross-boundary strategic priorities, it would need to be confident that the Dunton Garden Suburb is the most appropriate location for growth based on the evidence in order to make an informed decision on whether to progress the proposal further.

I am writing in respect of Brentwood Borough's Local Plan Strategic Growth Options published for consultation on the 6 January 2015 on behalf of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Planning, Cllr Dr. Richard Moore. This consultation coincides with our joint consultation on the Dunton Garden Suburb. The following response by Basildon Borough Council however relates specifically to Brentwood Borough's Local Plan Strategic Growth Options.

General Observations

The Council is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Local Plan Strategic Growth Options, but is unsure of the status of the document and how it will inform the next stage of the Local Plan process. The document focuses on the strategic growth options and specific sites only which suggests that it is a discussion paper which will inform the emerging draft Local Plan. It is also not clear what has informed its preparation, given the absence of key pieces of evidence and an audit trail.

Basildon Borough Council is deeply concerned as a neighbouring Local Planning Authority that the majority of the environmental evidence base, such as Green Infrastructure Study, Landscape Capacity Study, and Surface Water Management Plan are listed in the consultation document as being 'forthcoming'. Similarly the Highways Modelling and Crossrail Economic Impacts Study are also forthcoming which suggests that they have not informed the Strategic Growth Options. Furthermore, Brentwood Borough Council has not undertaken a Green Belt Review, be it partial or full, to inform any future release of Green Belt land as implied possible in the Strategic Growth Options consultation. Basildon Borough Council therefore considers that the Strategic Growth Options paper is premature of a clear appreciation and understanding of the baseline context in Brentwood Borough and the wider Essex area and it is difficult to see how the paper can meaningfully contribute to the debate on the most sustainable growth options available.

In preparing the draft Local Plan, Brentwood Borough Council may want to consider how the findings of all the forthcoming evidence impact on the suitability and deliverability of the growth options and sites identified in this consultation document and on any potential future joint working on the Dunton Garden Suburb proposal. One cannot assume that a site would be more suitable than another, or that one part of the Brentwood Borough could accommodate more growth than another, unless it can be supported by the plan's evidence; regardless of how popular or not a location is with Brentwood's communities. Therefore it is important that any future decisions on the spatial strategy and preferred sites have been informed by all of the evidence base commissioned and not just the Strategic Growth Options paper, even if this means Brentwood Borough Council has to revise and repeat its Strategic Growth Options exercise. To proceed in any other way risks the Local Plan being found unsound and consequently unadoptable.

Basildon Borough Council understands that the identification of sites within the consultation document does not mean these sites will necessarily be allocated in the future however; the Council is unsure just how the sites set out in Figure 8 and Appendix 1 have been identified. There are a number of sites within the list that are not included in the Council's latest Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) October 2011. The assessment of land availability is, according to the Government's Planning Practice Guidance (Ref ID: 3-001-20140306), an important step in the preparation of Local Plans and a requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). It ensures that all land is assessed together as part of plan preparation to identify which sites or strategic locations are the most suitable and deliverable for a particular use. Brentwood Borough Council should update its SHLAA by undertaking land availability assessments on all the sites listed in Appendix 1 to help inform the emerging draft Local Plan and review this on an annual basis. These assessments must review whether sites are suitable, available and achievable in both planning and viability terms, otherwise they cannot be relied upon to make up Brentwood's development land supply.

Basildon Borough Council is also unclear as to how the open spaces in Figure 15 have been determined and acknowledges that an area of open space is identified in the location of the Dunton Garden Suburb proposal, adjacent to the boundary of Basildon Borough. Whilst it is likely that the publication of the open space, green infrastructure and sports facilities studies will provide a more up-to-date context on this issue; its absence draws into question whether Dunton Garden Suburb as discussed as part of the Duty to Cooperate is feasible. Basildon Borough Council will continue working with Brentwood Borough Council on cross boundary strategic priorities as required by the Localism Act 2011 however shortcomings in the evidence base may affect what can be achieved.

Brentwood Borough Council should also identify and consider reasonable alternatives when developing the Local Plan's spatial strategy, growth options, specific sites and policies to ensure compliance with national policy and Strategic Environmental Assessment legislation. At examination the Council would need to show that the Local Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate, and other legal and procedural requirements, and that it complies with the test of soundness. As stipulated in paragraph 182 of the NPPF, for a Local Plan to be found "sound" it should have been positively prepared, be effective including the plan's deliverability, be consistent with national policy and be justified insofar as being the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence. It is not currently clear from the published evidence how Brentwood Borough Council can demonstrate this.

Question 1 and 2

It is unclear from the information provided why two of the growth areas have been divided in such a way, namely the A12 Corridor and the A127 Corridor. It is not clear why only West Horndon is considered to be the only settlement in the A127 Corridor. Ingrave, Herongate and Great Warley could have been included within the A127 Corridor due to their proximity to the A127 and the transport connections via the A128 and B186.

In the absence of a comprehensive set of evidence, in particular the highways modelling, landscape capacity study and land availability assessments, Basildon Borough Council considers the following statement in paragraph 2.19 to be based on assumptions, which are not supported by evidence and therefore undermine the Strategic Growth Options developed.

"Due to the different character and availability of suitable land the capacity for growth is potentially greater than elsewhere in the Borough. Although the A127 suffers from congestion problems it has more scope for improvements than the A12".

Furthermore is it not clear whether the planned infrastructure investment for the A12 by the Highways Agency and Essex County Council has been considered when comparing the capacity and scope for improvements of these two major highway corridors.

Question 3

Basildon Borough Council considers that it would have been more valuable for this consultation document to have identified and enabled discussion on the principles of growth, rather than considering specific housing sites options in the absence of a comprehensive set of evidence.

Question 4

Basildon Borough Council is concerned over the appropriateness of this question in light of the available evidence. The question makes certain assumptions about the capacity of the A127 Corridor to accommodate growth which is not supported by the plan's existing evidence base as the environmental and infrastructure constraints have not yet been identified. Little weight should be given to responses to this question as the question, as presented, is misleading.

Conclusion

Not withstanding the joint project of the Dunton Garden Suburb proposal that both Councils have been engaged with and presented for public consultation, as set out in the Memorandum of Understanding (November 2014), Basildon Borough Council's responsibilities as a local planning authority for Basildon Borough are not absolved.

Basildon Borough Council is continuing its Local Plan preparation and whilst Policy Areas for Development and Change (PADCs) have been identified there can be no absolute certainty that they will continue to the final version of the Local Plan. Basildon Borough Council's emerging Local Plan is being informed by a robust and credible, but proportionate evidence base and will only be submitted to the Secretary of State when the Council is confident that it has a sound plan, which will be tested by the Planning Inspectorate.

Basildon Borough Council is aware that whilst a comprehensive Green Belt Study has been undertaken for Basildon Borough to inform preferred development locations, no Green Belt Review has yet been undertaken for Brentwood Borough to inform Brentwood Borough Council's site selection and assess the suitability of the potential Green Belt development including the proposal at Dunton Garden Suburb.

Whilst Basildon Borough Council welcomes further engagement with Brentwood Borough to ensure that the points raised in this response are addressed and to continue working together on cross-boundary strategic priorities, it would need to be confident that the Dunton Garden Suburb is the most appropriate location for growth based on the evidence in order to make an informed decision on whether to progress the proposal further.

Thank you for providing Runnymede Borough Council with the opportunity to take part in the Strategic Growth Options and Dunton Garden Suburb consultations.

Please be advised that the Council has no comment to make on the content of the documentation at this time.

see attached

It has come to my attention that there is a proposed development of land at end of Peartree Lane and Lime Grove of up to 50 dwellings under the council's strategic growth plan.
Firstly I want to vent my anger that this proposed development was bought to my attention by a neighbour and not Brentwood Council, considering this has I believe been planned since 2013 without any consultation to immediate neighbours who will be considerably impacted.

I wish to make you aware of a number of strong objections that I have with regard to the proposed development of additional properties to the land at end of Peartree Lane and Lime Grove. As an immediate neighbour to the site of the proposed development, we are of the view that the proposed development will have a serious impact on our standard of living. Our specific objections are as follows:

I would like to oppose the development of this site on the below factors:-


1) I will no longer be able to let my children play out as their safety will be compromised , firstly due to the building work that these dwellings will entail along with lorries and diggers etc. and then once building have been completed and houses inhabitated , there will be faster and more traffic to get to the new development. The proposal would demonstrably harm the amenities enjoyed by local residents, in particular safe and available on-road parking , valuable green space , privacy, and the right to enjoy a quiet and safe residential environment.

2) Lime Grove is a narrow road and parking is already an issue, with all new housing developments the key is to put as many houses onto an one area as possible and thus compromising on parking allocations , this I would imagine these new dwellings cars parking leaking into Lime Grove and Peartree Lane. Insufficient parking space will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties through roadside parking on this narrow road.

3) It would also put more strain on the Doctors surgery, which at present is difficult to get an appointment when needed.

4) Doddinghurst Infants and Junior school is a wonderful little Village school, but at present my 2 children's classes have 30 children which is the maximum, where would all these new children go?

5) I would also like to know what kind of housing is being proposed - Is it private builder or social housing.

I do hope that all the objections will be taken seriously and we as residents will be kept up to date with all progress on this issue.

See attached.

I am writing to express my views with respect to the consultation on the Strategic Growth Options.
First I must mention that I only became aware of this plan when my local Parish Council in Herongate and Ingrave sent round their Newsletter on 15 February 2015. This newsletter stated I should already have received a letter from the council setting out the options. I have not, nor have all my local neighbours ~I have spoken to. This smacks of extremely poor consultation on such a massive issue and I believe could or should null any findings made by the council if they are based on proper consultation, which clearly this is not.

I also understand that the chance to respond finishes on 17 February so I will reply now and set out my views. I have failed to download the relevant documents from the Brentwood Local Plan website on several occasions and believe your website and documents are not easily accessible and totally insufficient for such an important consultation.

I am most concerned with the proposed land 028C and 192 to the West of Brentwood and Herongate and Ingrave, also to "several sites on the edge of Brentwood Urban Area within Green Belt. This is land to the East of the A128 In Ingrave and South of Running Waters off Hutton. Together these 2 main parcels of land are a huge swathe of green belt land which would would double the size of Shenfield and Hutton in one go and probably increase the greater "Brentwood borough by 50%" .

My objections are
* This is a wholly inappropriate use of green belt land
* It is totally inappropriate and excessive to meet the needs of the Borough
* It is thus an unnecessary development because there are other more appropriate options
* There are no very special circumstances to build on this green belt land
* It is totally out of keeping with the local area
* It would destroy countryside and wildlife where I personally have seen Birds of prey, hares, foxes, rabbits, insects - including a count of at least 100 butterflies on a 30 minute walk on a field to the east of Ingrave included in the planned area proposed for development
Overall this huge proposal, if accepted would be a disaster for Brentwood. The borough provides a buffer to London, providing a green haven for wildlife, the population to enjoy and improve the living conditions on the edge of a huge and expanding city of London. This could be the first phase of a massive expansion and a joining up of the borough with Billericay or Basildon, thus loosing the character of the Borough for ever.

I would like to take this opportunity to say how underhand this whole process has been. Jo Ireland told the Chair or the Herongate and Ingrave PC that every household should have received a mailshot regarding this issue. We then hear from Jill Warren that this would not have been the case. Who do we believe? We know this is not the case for many residents of not only our two villages but residents from Hutton too. I do not understand how a process can be deemed democratic when it evades consulting the very people it concerns the most. there are many elderly people in our villages, who have no access to the internet (and if they did they wouldn't know what to do with it) whose only source of information would have come from a mail shot. How can a process be deemed democratic when it excludes a not insignificant portion of the population?
For this reason this process needs to be put back to allow proper and reasoned consultation with the residents (and let us not forget, voters) who lives would irrevocably changed.

I am writing as a Governor of Doddinghurst Infant School in relation to the planning proposals in and around the Doddinghurst area.

Firstly, I would like to reiterate all the comments and objections that our Chair of Governors Kris Sharman has made. As a committee we are strongly against wholesale developments in the area due to the lack of adequate infrastructure. Doddinghurst has very limited public transport and with a large number of young families parents are already affected by extremely poor roads and parking around the centre of the village. Further development would only exacerbate this issue.

As a village with a large number of young families and elderly residents as this demographic changes with young families moving into the village in the place of our elderly residents we will experience strains on our resources. This will only be compounded by increased development within the area.

I am aware of the need of increased housing within the larger Brentwood area, however targeting villages as an area of growth will create numerous issues and future costs for the council, as well as damaging the environment and weakening strong communities.

I would also like to make the council aware of residents disappointment at the councils inadequate provision for communicating planning proposals.

Many thanks for your attention and I look forward to your response

I am responding in relation to the planning development to the local Brentwood Villages as a Governor of Doddinghurst Infant School.

I was made aware of these plans only last week by the letter sent to the houses within the Blackmore Parish. Given the importance and severe impact such decision will make, it is important that all residents in all local parishes are kept up to date with the publicity of these plans.

Needless to say I object to such plans. My reasons for my objection include the following:-

Local schools are already at maximum capacity or there abouts. Where would these children brought into the villages be educated? DIS and no doubt others are already finding the restrictions on school finances a problem to control. How will addition children in the area assist this?

Public transport links are extremely limited with just one bus service into Brentwood.

Roads into the villages are limited with continuos road repairs needed, continuous flooding in winter months. Roads such as Mountnessing Lane, Pettits Lane, Wyatts Green Road to name just a few.

Parking at Doddinghurst schools is already a problem at drop off and pick up times, with cars using both the shops and public house as an overflow.

The doctors surgery is already struggling at full capacity. Trying to get an appointment to see a GP is a very timely and difficult procedure.

In addition to this and on a private note, it must be considered that people choose to live in a village to benefit from the small niche community a village live brings. By extending the village you are removing this benefit, if people wanted to live in a town they would not have chose Doddinghurst and the surrounding parishes.

If you need anything further from me please do not hesitate to contact me on this email address or on my telephone number.

RE: Planning proposal plot 143 Land East of Peartree Lane and North of Peartree Close - (Lime Grove, Peartree Lane)


I am writing to register my disgust at the way 'planning proposal plot 143' has been handled, in a secretive, underhanded, callous way, with no thought for existing residents, who have chosen to live here at a price (property is more expensive here than Brentwood and some of the surrounding villages and Council Tax is premium) A few residents found out about this plan Wednesday 11th February and it became general knowledge to the rest of the village Thursday 12th, giving us just 6 day to submit our Consultant Questionaire form and any other response to this issue.
There has been a conspiracy to keep this quiet for as long as possible, by doing so hampering people's efforts to respond and vent their concerns for the future of their VILLAGE!
If the planned amount of building went ahead property prices would drop dramatically in the Village, we would no longer be a village! people bought here because they wanted to live in a village! This sort of building should not be allowed in a village!!

This village cannot accommodate such an increase of population without there being an adverse and negative effect!

We have no Police in the Village, Brentwood Police have been cut, we do not see police presence in the village even though crime as gone up because of this!
Statistics show crime increases where there is Social Housing.
We are not equipped as a village.

Because of cuts in the fire service Brentwood only have one fire engine, building that amount of housing in Doddinghurst would be extremely dangerous, putting a strain on the emergency services! putting lives at risk! certain times of the day a fire engine would not be able to get down Lime Grove!

The Schools would not be able to accommodate an increased number of children! The school has already been extended to its maximum to accommodate children from the additional housing in Widbrook (Outings Lane/Church lane) Doddinghurst and Stondon Massey.
Also Secondary School children have buses organised which have standing room only, presently, because services have been cut.

Pre-Schools would not be able to accommodate an increased number of children! (They already have waiting lists)

We have One Doctors surgery in Doddinghurst which covers a large area, you have to wait 2 weeks for a routine appointment now! They would struggle to cope with this many more patients and everybody would suffer with the consequences!

Parking in the 'village shops car park' is alway's full now, so what would it be like with that many more people/cars??

School runs are extremely busy and parking is very hazardous in the village hall car park and shops car park, more cars and people would make this more chaotic and dangerous!

Buses only run hourly between 7am-6pm week days and 8am-5pm Saturdays, no buses Sunday or Bank Holidays, bus service cannot be relied upon and quite often do not turn up, so you either have to get cabs or drive.


Lime grove already has a problem with car/lorries/Vans passing parked cars, often mounting the pavement to pass, there are already too many cars on the road, owing to more people driving and owning cars than when the roads were built in the 50's/60's.
There could potentially be 100 more cars using Lime Grove, an extremely dangerous situation, it doesn't bare thinking about!

Building housing of this quantity needs to be nearer Towns/Train stations to encourage employment, there is not much employment local, we do not have an industrial area, only a few shops, Doctors, School.

Having just found out about the new local plans for future developments for peartree lane i must say i feel very upset that the council have not automatically sent out hard copy questionaires.We only moved here a year ago after all the checks with solicitors and feel this was hidden .can you send me a hard copy questionaire asap as i will be cotesting

I have just found out today, that a significant amount of land has been put forward west of Brentwood and Ingrave/Herongate for new build houses on the Green Belt.

I am shocked to find out that their has been no official Consultation, meeting or notification with local residents. I understand a notice was put into free local papers and local radio. This is wholly unacceptable.

I would like to express my objection, as we will lose a huge part of ancient woodlands, including the bluebell woods. This area is a wonderful place for leisure, walks and to raise children in the beautiful countryside with fresh air. Also, the roads will not cope with the extra traffic, they are already very congested on these routes.

We have posted notices through letter boxes and a notice on a local residents group on Facebook.
I hope that a full Consultation and meeting can be arranged with local residents before this is considered any further.

The A127 corridor is greenbelt land, protecting villages mentioned in the Doomseday Book. The greenbelt was designed to prevent urban sprawl, and it is government policy not to build on greenbelt land.

As mentioned in Q.1, not only have the villages of Herongate and Ingrave been included in the A12 corridor, which gives a false representation of the impact on development of that area - these naturally use the close A127 - but the wording of various points pushes the reader to go along with the idea that the A127 has room for expansion, but the A12 doesn't.

2.15 Transport connections and local facilities are not as good in this part of the Borough - Transport connections via road and rail are good in the A12 corridor area, but not in the A127 corridor area. Because Herongate and Ingrave have been falsely included in the A12 corridor, (although they only have access via A128 and are closer to the small West Horndon c2c line than the Crossrail stations in the North of the borough), it makes it appear as if the A12 is poorly served for public transport, which it isn't. Hutton residents also have the use of nearby Shenfield, and even Billericay station, as well as the A129, and close access to the A12.

2.17 However, in addition there are development opportunities surrounding the urban areas - The use of however leads people to believe it to be a negative, although it states there are development opportunities around the urban areas.

2.18 The A127 Corridor contains the single settlement of West Horndon - As stated repeatedly, the A127 corridor does in fact contain West Horndon, AND Herongate and Ingrave, as they are both closer to the A127 than the A12, and not only use the A127, but are directly affected by events on the A127...whether proposed building work, or the regular accidents caused by it running beyond capacity.

2.19 the capacity for growth is potentially greater than elsewhere in the Borough - The capacity for growth is far more limited, as it doesn't have the high speed rail lines, good quality road, or brownfield sites of the North of the borough. In addition to this, the wording is leading the reader. It doesn't ask a question, it states as fact that there is greater potential for growth, although this is only the biased opinion of the writer who clearly doesn't want development to take place along the true A12 corridor. This goes against the consultation process.

2.19 Although the A127 suffers from congestion problems it has more scope for improvements than the A12 - As above, this is a biased statement presenting the writer's opinion as fact. This should never have been allowed as part of a consulation document.

In addition to this, the A12 is a better quality road, with the advantage of the major transport improvements provided by the Crossrail service. This means that, far from the suggestions in the biased wording, it is in fact the A12 corridor which has more scope for improvement. There are also areas of brownfield around that area, near to Crossrail Shenfield station and Shenfield secondary school, unlike any development along the A127 corridor which lacks both of those amenities.

Explanation
I am using the PDF printed version of the 'Strategic Growth Options Consultation as a basis for my comments as requested. However I have struggled massively in trying to get a word version or to input my comments online so I am 'partially duplicating' the form for ease (I hope) of cross reference.
Before I start I would like to question the nature of the consultation and its description as a strategic study. It has come as a huge surprise to me and my neighbours to find a document that has been written about in the Brentwood Gazette many times and also elsewhere that also includes detailed areas that are suggested as potential development sites. In my line of work and past experience as an IT consultant, that is not a strategy but a tactical document. The strategy should surely be decided (i.e. Centralised development versus distributed development) and then sites sought to comply with that strategy.
The inclusion of suggested sites has worried so many people and since so many are sites that have been rejected previously as unsuitable there is a distinct feeling of impotence and hopelessness about our ability to determine the shape and character of our community and living environment.

Q1: NO - The definitions of the 4 options would seem to define the options for GROWTH but only insofar as growth being dictated by central government. I would however have preferred that ANY future growth is determined ONLY by LOCAL need from organically driven need i.e. the needs of those already resident in the area rather than to accommodate a major influx from other areas. It has been the case for at least 30 years that Brentwood is effectively FULL and now that the major development sites (Old Laundry Site, Warley Hospital, Geary Drive etc.) have been used up then the expression about fitting a quart into a pint pot seems appropriate.
By pure definition and based on the fact that the centre of a circle is infinitely small and the outside infinitely large, then areas such as Brentwood that have undergone radical structural and social change have far less room for additional growth whereas the areas further out from London on the circle have more space to grow with less social impact.
The change form a family based town to a transient population of 'individual flat dwellers' has already brought its issues and further weakening of communities by additional growth is unwelcome and unsettling and definitely NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Q2: YES - as far as they go!
This is the main part of the representations I wish to make.
2.14 and 2.15 give a satisfactory overview of the issues but they are not in this summary put in the context of the history of development of the Northern Villages (which for brevity I will call NV from here on.)
From an emotional viewpoint, and I will concentrate on Doddinghurst and its immediate areas, the community has seen a change in cohesion as have all areas over the 35 years since I moved here. The willingness and ability of residents to not only to participate but also contribute to the activities and social fabric of the village has been greatly impacted by the major trend towards both 'parents' in a family unit working and typically commuting to work outside the area and with no realistic prospect of an increase in 'local' employment so the oft quoted 'sustainability argument' is a very large red herring.
This tendency has huge implications for the 'voluntary' capacity of the village to help with early years child care, school based projects and after school supervision and help of senior age children. There is by locating more housing in the NV's an increase in the commuting not only to work but also to child care and at an older age, major isolation of young people from their friends due to a poor bus service.
Speaking as a parent of children (23 and 26), there is now a desire amongst young people to be located in towns. They don't want the drive to a station and the isolation of the last bus into Brentwood at 6.30 and none on a Sunday.
The villages are not as socially attractive to today's young people as they were to my generation who grew up in the London area and love the rural isolation of the villages. Many of those in the 'social housing' are heard to say that they feel cut off and miss the transport options of the town.

Is it therefore sensible to create yet more housing in the NV's that only compound that problem? (the relative house prices and the trends will I think justify my comments that the villages are not seen as so desirable as they were with the time and cost of driving to the train and facilities.)

Q3: As a high level overview, there are no sites defined in the document that are suitable with the exception of the 'doctors surgery site' in Outings Lane.
It is my firm belief and opinion that ALL of the rest are based on long term attempts to build on sites to the benefit ONLY of the developer and NOT the community of Doddinghurst.
They are in general Trojan horse developments that would set a DEVASTATING precedent for very major ongoing development and in many cases are on sites which have been repeatedly and firmly rejected by both Doddinghurst residents and by BDC planning.

In particular, site 070 has been repeatedly rejected as creating a new area for housing and extending the natural boundary of the village. The road at that point is treacherous and the wall at the side of the road supports the earthen bank that was put in place many years ago in order to widen the road. It is a blind bend and the local residents have REPEATEDLY come out is force to oppose development of the site.

I will now turn to the most important, to me, suggested developments - 143, 224, 185.

Together these developments threaten to completely destroy the rural character of the area. I acknowledge that 143 and 224 would have a major impact on me at 25 Park Meadow due to their location.

It is my contention that together, the three suggested sites are very definitely an attempt to build along the entire length of the unmade up part of Brook Lane. Brook Lane probably represents the best and most defining nature and character of the village. As its name suggests, the untarmaced road follows the Brook stream until it reaches a point where vehicles can no longer get through. It has been a beautiful walk for generations and certainly with my children as they grew up.
There have been repeated and ever increasing numbers of attempts recently to ride roughshod over the fact that the properties in Brook Lane were originally weekend 'sheds' made typically of wood and used by those

Putting aside emotion, the potential for developing even a small amount of this i.e. 143, 224 and 185 is effectively NIL since suitable access and egress for any of the sites is not available.

SITE 143 - this is bounded by Lime Grove and Peartree Lane (both parts). Lime Grove is a narrow Road that is already frequently difficult to get through with parked cars. It is doubtful if a fire engine could gain access to 143 in an emergency.
Peartree Lane (near Post Office) is similar in nature to Lime Grove and has no capacity for more traffic to site 143.
Peartree Lane (unmadeup part exiting onto Doddinghurst Road between Apple tree crescent and Mountnessing Lane - this has long been a local concern. It was unused for 30 years and was overgrown and impassable for vehicles but has at times in the past few years been used by some in suitable vehicles to gain access to the bottom of Lime Grove. It is a 'lethal' turnout onto the Doddinghurst Road on a blind bend without potential for improvement.
It might be thought that access could be made from my road, Park Meadow, but even if a very narrow strip of land at the bottom were used and even if it provided a sufficiently wide access, then the resultant traffic onto Mountnessing Lane and then onto the Doddinghurst Road would increase further this already dandgerous set of junctions.
Likewise with access through somewhere in Peartree Close. Peartree Close was the result of 2 successive developments of the long gardens of houses on the Doddinghusrt Road and has already increased the traffic in the top of Park Meadow at the junction mentioned above and is for local residents the final acceptable development to be tolerated.
This junction is almost blind and is a derestricted road with 'just' enough for 2 passing cars at this point. Traffic uses it as a cut through from Mountnessing to Brentwood and it can be very dangerous to turn out of safely. In addition a double decker school bus turns at the top and then reverses into the top of Park Meadow. It is a dangerous junction and cannot take further traffic.

This then causes me to turn to suggested site 224 which is one of those sites mentioned previously as having been developed from original weekend 'getaway' shacks where the amount of land was as we learned from a milkman years ago 'as much as you want and can walk around'. The resultant long gardens are in the green belt but the owners (and developers) have regularly tried to get around the limitations for their own benefit and frequently built first and asked for planning permission later (though I am not suggesting this in the case of this property but generally with these properties.)

If 224 was developed then supposing that around 50 (as a complete guess!) houses were built on 143 and 224 then they would either have to exit via the routes described for 143 or through the Brook Lane junction with Mountnessing Lane / Pettits Lane. This is a terrible turning without any visibility to the fast traffic from the left (from Mountnessing) at up to 60mph and Mountnessing Lane is only just suitable for 2 cars to pass slowly and that supposes that the edge of the road is complete without deep ruts and potholes which it suffers from terribly.
Mountnessing Lane is not regarded as important enough currently to get winter gritting and with the overflowing river at the low point there is frequently sheet ice on the bend just before a very damaged bridge and before a right hand bend that cars speed around. I could go on but suffice to say that exiting from either end of Mountnessing Lane / Pettits Lane is dangerous already with the current traffic levels.

Site 185 - I will only say that this is a peculiar and opportunistic suggestion. It cannot by itself be viable and it suggests that this and the 224 site are considered as a way of developing all along Brook Lane. The issues of traffic, access, water, sewerage, electricity, gas etc etc that this would raise would I imagine count this out of any serious consideration.

Sites 143 and 224
I have addressed the ruinous result on the rural nature of the area that these suggested sites would cause and the damage to the quality of life and small community feel they would cause. I will now turn to practical issues of services.
Sewerage and other 'piped' services - it has long been the case that there is no ability for anything but the conversion of an occasional property in the village because of the lack of sewerage capacity. This has been upheld by many planning enquiries.
Likewise, I believe that the availability of water is also limited.
I know from my professional training that the cabling for telephony / broadband is seriously in need of replacement and is limited in capacity at itsd local point (i.e. from the green cabinets to houses.)
The gas mains in Doddinghurst Road are like most of the old local infrastructure groaning at the continued additions of houses over the past 40 years and indeed have on one stretch more repairs than original pipe.
To continue to add to existing additions is as non sensical as adding electrical extension to extension blocks and as dangerous and uneconomical.

To upgrade the infrastructure would be inefficient use of capital compared to the number of extra properties gained and the huge impact on residents and particularly given that one of the strategies calls for 'filling in around the edge of villages' so that a huge amount of new infrastructure would be needed.

It would be far more efficient to create a new infrastructure such as that suggested at Dunton where there is real benefit from the dedication of such investment and the resultant (new) community benefits as a whole. (This however is still based on the diktat that central government is imposing on residents not of their own free will !!

Schools, Doctors and other local essential provision.
The schools are full and it is impossible to get a doctors' appointment. How are these to be addressed if there is more housing built?

Buses and public transport + Hospital visits
The 261 is our only remaining lifeline to Brentwood. It finishes at 18.30 and doesn't run on a Sunday. Residents and particularly older residents are forced onto taxis and in addition we are 'lumped together' with the outer London health services so that a patient may be at Queens or worse at Goodmayes hospital



IMPACT on new residents
It is my opinion that the inconvenience of many of these factors which we as long term residents have accepted will not be OK with a new generation and this therefore suggests that it is preferable to build new communities where they are addressed at the outset rather than impose new housing on us so ruining our way of life without benefit to potential new residents.


Q4: It is the least of the evils to develop along the A127 where there is a need for infrastructure and which would be the most efficient use of capital reaching the greatest number of new homes. The same investment in other areas would be away from natural transport lines and provide for less and more dispersed homes.

Q5: It is a misnomer that the A12 is an accessible corridor onto which the traffic from new homes can safely and easily gain access. The A12 being a 2 lane highway already has issues with access on and off at the junctions and the majority of the road in the Brentwood area is either at high level, single direction access or on the border of Chelmsford. The build at the fringes is therefore illogical.

Q6: Neither. To build on Greenfield Greenbelt sites at the edge of villages destroys the very aspect that makes them communities and places of belonging. The greenbelt was established in order to prevent the never ending sprawl of development threatened in the 1930's and it is not in this generations remit to 'steal' that preserved environment from future generations.
To build on brown field sites has been seen in this area a golden opportunity for unscrupulous developers and landowners to destroy sites so that they get planning permission to replace an 'eyesore' with new homes. This cynical disregard for the views wishes and needs of local residents should be strongly resisted except in very isolated cases such as the old Doddinghurst Doctors Surgery site in Outings Lane which encapsulates a small area defined as green belt but which most residents would be surprised to find so.

Q7: Yes but I would go further in encouraging the use of public transport and therefore the sites should have good road and rail access and a good bus service.

Q8: Yes this seems sensible to avoid a high street that only contains night time venues and cheap shops.

Q9: Doddinghurst has managed its resources well over the years through local action and dedicated volunteers to provide sport and recreation areas as well as open areas. I believe that this current provision is OK.

Q10: This question gives no scale or metric so I will just say that I value the landscape as 10 out of 10 and know that my family have appreciated that landscape and surroundings as they have grown up. However I also believe from local conversations that this love of the countryside including its associated deprivations may not cross all generations and some who have moved into the village bemoan the lack of transport, lighting and other facilities they were used to in their former homes.
I would therefore question why we are considering building new homes in an area that many no longer appreciate and in so doing destroy the landscape and environment and community that the current residents value so much.

Q11: What a strange question!
The landscape consists of Houses in the Doddinghurst direction; no obvious commercial buildings as such; Farmland; Woodland; very little infrastructure and parks as leisure facilities in addition to playgrounds and a village hall at the centre of the village.

Q12: The principle 'services' based infrastructure issues relate to the availability of water and sewerage which particularly sewerage is already over burdened; Gas / electricity both of which creak as the additions to the village over the past 30+ years put further demands on their ancient infrastructure typically to the point of failure.
The road system both within the village and at its access points of Church Lane, Outings Lane, Doddinghurst Road and Mountnessing Lane have as much traffic as can safely be accommodated and with little opportunity for improvement.
The nature of the village is such that spines come off the Doddinghurst Road and Church Lane (going into Mill Lane which most people think of as Church Lane). These spines are typically long and may have 1 or 2 further roads off them. The main spines and particularly Lime Grove are very difficult to get through at times due to the 'necessary' parking outside houses.
Speaking as a network designer in a previous career, the ability to provide to these spines is already past the natural design point and the accesses to the core Doddinghurst Road / Church Lane is dangerous. Additionally, the other routes in such as Outings Lane have their own dangers as has been proven by accidents over the years especially in icy weather (look at the numbers of cars that end up in the ditches at Park Wood each month.)
The needs for new infrastructure in Doddinghurst compared to the cost versus new homes served would suggest that this is not the area for development.
That point and others has been at the heart of the planning rejections for almost all of the 'suggested' sites in the current consultation and why I am so concerned that previously refused planning applications seem to have gained a new life as if rising from the dead to haunt us!

Q13: Put the money into areas where it will give the greatest return i.e. benefit the greatest number of residents which equates to new areas not piecemeal additions onto unwilling areas such as Doddinghurst where it will only destroy and not benefit residents.

Provide sufficient affordable parking near stations to enable residents to use public transport and also improve bus services to a point where they are a viable alternative to the car. Where possible and sensible, provide safe cycle routes. Unfortunately this is effectively impossible form the villages as has been demonstrated by previous attempts by the council and voluntary bodies.

Stop the illogical trend to send people to far-away hospitals! Many or most residents have moved out of London and have little or no affinity to it now. However for some reason we are expected to get to Goomayes hospital or Queens or Basildon. It is hard enough for young people to achieve this but when an elderly person needs to visit a spouse in hospital say on a Sunday it is VERY expensive and tiring for them and massively increases their sense of isolation which ultimately causes additional care costs for them. We are a part of Essex to whom we pay council tax and although I acknowledge that Health is from Taxation it seems often to be a fact that is ignored.

Explanation
I am using the PDF printed version of the 'Strategic Growth Options Consultation as a basis for my comments as requested. However I have struggled massively in trying to get a word version or to input my comments online so I am 'partially duplicating' the form for ease (I hope) of cross reference.
Before I start I would like to question the nature of the consultation and its description as a strategic study. It has come as a huge surprise to me and my neighbours to find a document that has been written about in the Brentwood Gazette many times and also elsewhere that also includes detailed areas that are suggested as potential development sites. In my line of work and past experience as an IT consultant, that is not a strategy but a tactical document. The strategy should surely be decided (i.e. Centralised development versus distributed development) and then sites sought to comply with that strategy.
The inclusion of suggested sites has worried so many people and since so many are sites that have been rejected previously as unsuitable there is a distinct feeling of impotence and hopelessness about our ability to determine the shape and character of our community and living environment.

Q1: NO - The definitions of the 4 options would seem to define the options for GROWTH but only insofar as growth being dictated by central government. I would however have preferred that ANY future growth is determined ONLY by LOCAL need from organically driven need i.e. the needs of those already resident in the area rather than to accommodate a major influx from other areas. It has been the case for at least 30 years that Brentwood is effectively FULL and now that the major development sites (Old Laundry Site, Warley Hospital, Geary Drive etc.) have been used up then the expression about fitting a quart into a pint pot seems appropriate.
By pure definition and based on the fact that the centre of a circle is infinitely small and the outside infinitely large, then areas such as Brentwood that have undergone radical structural and social change have far less room for additional growth whereas the areas further out from London on the circle have more space to grow with less social impact.
The change form a family based town to a transient population of 'individual flat dwellers' has already brought its issues and further weakening of communities by additional growth is unwelcome and unsettling and definitely NOT SUSTAINABLE.

Q2: YES - as far as they go!
This is the main part of the representations I wish to make.
2.14 and 2.15 give a satisfactory overview of the issues but they are not in this summary put in the context of the history of development of the Northern Villages (which for brevity I will call NV from here on.)
From an emotional viewpoint, and I will concentrate on Doddinghurst and its immediate areas, the community has seen a change in cohesion as have all areas over the 35 years since I moved here. The willingness and ability of residents to not only to participate but also contribute to the activities and social fabric of the village has been greatly impacted by the major trend towards both 'parents' in a family unit working and typically commuting to work outside the area and with no realistic prospect of an increase in 'local' employment so the oft quoted 'sustainability argument' is a very large red herring.
This tendency has huge implications for the 'voluntary' capacity of the village to help with early years child care, school based projects and after school supervision and help of senior age children. There is by locating more housing in the NV's an increase in the commuting not only to work but also to child care and at an older age, major isolation of young people from their friends due to a poor bus service.
Speaking as a parent of children (23 and 26), there is now a desire amongst young people to be located in towns. They don't want the drive to a station and the isolation of the last bus into Brentwood at 6.30 and none on a Sunday.
The villages are not as socially attractive to today's young people as they were to my generation who grew up in the London area and love the rural isolation of the villages. Many of those in the 'social housing' are heard to say that they feel cut off and miss the transport options of the town.

Is it therefore sensible to create yet more housing in the NV's that only compound that problem? (the relative house prices and the trends will I think justify my comments that the villages are not seen as so desirable as they were with the time and cost of driving to the train and facilities.)

Q3: As a high level overview, there are no sites defined in the document that are suitable with the exception of the 'doctors surgery site' in Outings Lane.
It is my firm belief and opinion that ALL of the rest are based on long term attempts to build on sites to the benefit ONLY of the developer and NOT the community of Doddinghurst.
They are in general Trojan horse developments that would set a DEVASTATING precedent for very major ongoing development and in many cases are on sites which have been repeatedly and firmly rejected by both Doddinghurst residents and by BDC planning.

In particular, site 070 has been repeatedly rejected as creating a new area for housing and extending the natural boundary of the village. The road at that point is treacherous and the wall at the side of the road supports the earthen bank that was put in place many years ago in order to widen the road. It is a blind bend and the local residents have REPEATEDLY come out is force to oppose development of the site.

I will now turn to the most important, to me, suggested developments - 143, 224, 185.

Together these developments threaten to completely destroy the rural character of the area. I acknowledge that 143 and 224 would have a major impact on me at 25 Park Meadow due to their location.

It is my contention that together, the three suggested sites are very definitely an attempt to build along the entire length of the unmade up part of Brook Lane. Brook Lane probably represents the best and most defining nature and character of the village. As its name suggests, the untarmaced road follows the Brook stream until it reaches a point where vehicles can no longer get through. It has been a beautiful walk for generations and certainly with my children as they grew up.
There have been repeated and ever increasing numbers of attempts recently to ride roughshod over the fact that the properties in Brook Lane were originally weekend 'sheds' made typically of wood and used by those

Putting aside emotion, the potential for developing even a small amount of this i.e. 143, 224 and 185 is effectively NIL since suitable access and egress for any of the sites is not available.

SITE 143 - this is bounded by Lime Grove and Peartree Lane (both parts). Lime Grove is a narrow Road that is already frequently difficult to get through with parked cars. It is doubtful if a fire engine could gain access to 143 in an emergency.
Peartree Lane (near Post Office) is similar in nature to Lime Grove and has no capacity for more traffic to site 143.
Peartree Lane (unmadeup part exiting onto Doddinghurst Road between Apple tree crescent and Mountnessing Lane - this has long been a local concern. It was unused for 30 years and was overgrown and impassable for vehicles but has at times in the past few years been used by some in suitable vehicles to gain access to the bottom of Lime Grove. It is a 'lethal' turnout onto the Doddinghurst Road on a blind bend without potential for improvement.
It might be thought that access could be made from my road, Park Meadow, but even if a very narrow strip of land at the bottom were used and even if it provided a sufficiently wide access, then the resultant traffic onto Mountnessing Lane and then onto the Doddinghurst Road would increase further this already dandgerous set of junctions.
Likewise with access through somewhere in Peartree Close. Peartree Close was the result of 2 successive developments of the long gardens of houses on the Doddinghusrt Road and has already increased the traffic in the top of Park Meadow at the junction mentioned above and is for local residents the final acceptable development to be tolerated.
This junction is almost blind and is a derestricted road with 'just' enough for 2 passing cars at this point. Traffic uses it as a cut through from Mountnessing to Brentwood and it can be very dangerous to turn out of safely. In addition a double decker school bus turns at the top and then reverses into the top of Park Meadow. It is a dangerous junction and cannot take further traffic.

This then causes me to turn to suggested site 224 which is one of those sites mentioned previously as having been developed from original weekend 'getaway' shacks where the amount of land was as we learned from a milkman years ago 'as much as you want and can walk around'. The resultant long gardens are in the green belt but the owners (and developers) have regularly tried to get around the limitations for their own benefit and frequently built first and asked for planning permission later (though I am not suggesting this in the case of this property but generally with these properties.)

If 224 was developed then supposing that around 50 (as a complete guess!) houses were built on 143 and 224 then they would either have to exit via the routes described for 143 or through the Brook Lane junction with Mountnessing Lane / Pettits Lane. This is a terrible turning without any visibility to the fast traffic from the left (from Mountnessing) at up to 60mph and Mountnessing Lane is only just suitable for 2 cars to pass slowly and that supposes that the edge of the road is complete without deep ruts and potholes which it suffers from terribly.
Mountnessing Lane is not regarded as important enough currently to get winter gritting and with the overflowing river at the low point there is frequently sheet ice on the bend just before a very damaged bridge and before a right hand bend that cars speed around. I could go on but suffice to say that exiting from either end of Mountnessing Lane / Pettits Lane is dangerous already with the current traffic levels.

Site 185 - I will only say that this is a peculiar and opportunistic suggestion. It cannot by itself be viable and it suggests that this and the 224 site are considered as a way of developing all along Brook Lane. The issues of traffic, access, water, sewerage, electricity, gas etc etc that this would raise would I imagine count this out of any serious consideration.

Sites 143 and 224
I have addressed the ruinous result on the rural nature of the area that these suggested sites would cause and the damage to the quality of life and small community feel they would cause. I will now turn to practical issues of services.
Sewerage and other 'piped' services - it has long been the case that there is no ability for anything but the conversion of an occasional property in the village because of the lack of sewerage capacity. This has been upheld by many planning enquiries.
Likewise, I believe that the availability of water is also limited.
I know from my professional training that the cabling for telephony / broadband is seriously in need of replacement and is limited in capacity at itsd local point (i.e. from the green cabinets to houses.)
The gas mains in Doddinghurst Road are like most of the old local infrastructure groaning at the continued additions of houses over the past 40 years and indeed have on one stretch more repairs than original pipe.
To continue to add to existing additions is as non sensical as adding electrical extension to extension blocks and as dangerous and uneconomical.

To upgrade the infrastructure would be inefficient use of capital compared to the number of extra properties gained and the huge impact on residents and particularly given that one of the strategies calls for 'filling in around the edge of villages' so that a huge amount of new infrastructure would be needed.

It would be far more efficient to create a new infrastructure such as that suggested at Dunton where there is real benefit from the dedication of such investment and the resultant (new) community benefits as a whole. (This however is still based on the diktat that central government is imposing on residents not of their own free will !!

Schools, Doctors and other local essential provision.
The schools are full and it is impossible to get a doctors' appointment. How are these to be addressed if there is more housing built?

Buses and public transport + Hospital visits
The 261 is our only remaining lifeline to Brentwood. It finishes at 18.30 and doesn't run on a Sunday. Residents and particularly older residents are forced onto taxis and in addition we are 'lumped together' with the outer London health services so that a patient may be at Queens or worse at Goodmayes hospital



IMPACT on new residents
It is my opinion that the inconvenience of many of these factors which we as long term residents have accepted will not be OK with a new generation and this therefore suggests that it is preferable to build new communities where they are addressed at the outset rather than impose new housing on us so ruining our way of life without benefit to potential new residents.


Q4: It is the least of the evils to develop along the A127 where there is a need for infrastructure and which would be the most efficient use of capital reaching the greatest number of new homes. The same investment in other areas would be away from natural transport lines and provide for less and more dispersed homes.

Q5: It is a misnomer that the A12 is an accessible corridor onto which the traffic from new homes can safely and easily gain access. The A12 being a 2 lane highway already has issues with access on and off at the junctions and the majority of the road in the Brentwood area is either at high level, single direction access or on the border of Chelmsford. The build at the fringes is therefore illogical.

Q6: Neither. To build on Greenfield Greenbelt sites at the edge of villages destroys the very aspect that makes them communities and places of belonging. The greenbelt was established in order to prevent the never ending sprawl of development threatened in the 1930's and it is not in this generations remit to 'steal' that preserved environment from future generations.
To build on brown field sites has been seen in this area a golden opportunity for unscrupulous developers and landowners to destroy sites so that they get planning permission to replace an 'eyesore' with new homes. This cynical disregard for the views wishes and needs of local residents should be strongly resisted except in very isolated cases such as the old Doddinghurst Doctors Surgery site in Outings Lane which encapsulates a small area defined as green belt but which most residents would be surprised to find so.

Q7: Yes but I would go further in encouraging the use of public transport and therefore the sites should have good road and rail access and a good bus service.

Q8: Yes this seems sensible to avoid a high street that only contains night time venues and cheap shops.

Q9: Doddinghurst has managed its resources well over the years through local action and dedicated volunteers to provide sport and recreation areas as well as open areas. I believe that this current provision is OK.

Q10: This question gives no scale or metric so I will just say that I value the landscape as 10 out of 10 and know that my family have appreciated that landscape and surroundings as they have grown up. However I also believe from local conversations that this love of the countryside including its associated deprivations may not cross all generations and some who have moved into the village bemoan the lack of transport, lighting and other facilities they were used to in their former homes.
I would therefore question why we are considering building new homes in an area that many no longer appreciate and in so doing destroy the landscape and environment and community that the current residents value so much.

Q11: What a strange question!
The landscape consists of Houses in the Doddinghurst direction; no obvious commercial buildings as such; Farmland; Woodland; very little infrastructure and parks as leisure facilities in addition to playgrounds and a village hall at the centre of the village.

Q12: The principle 'services' based infrastructure issues relate to the availability of water and sewerage which particularly sewerage is already over burdened; Gas / electricity both of which creak as the additions to the village over the past 30+ years put further demands on their ancient infrastructure typically to the point of failure.
The road system both within the village and at its access points of Church Lane, Outings Lane, Doddinghurst Road and Mountnessing Lane have as much traffic as can safely be accommodated and with little opportunity for improvement.
The nature of the village is such that spines come off the Doddinghurst Road and Church Lane (going into Mill Lane which most people think of as Church Lane). These spines are typically long and may have 1 or 2 further roads off them. The main spines and particularly Lime Grove are very difficult to get through at times due to the 'necessary' parking outside houses.
Speaking as a network designer in a previous career, the ability to provide to these spines is already past the natural design point and the accesses to the core Doddinghurst Road / Church Lane is dangerous. Additionally, the other routes in such as Outings Lane have their own dangers as has been proven by accidents over the years especially in icy weather (look at the numbers of cars that end up in the ditches at Park Wood each month.)
The needs for new infrastructure in Doddinghurst compared to the cost versus new homes served would suggest that this is not the area for development.
That point and others has been at the heart of the planning rejections for almost all of the 'suggested' sites in the current consultation and why I am so concerned that previously refused planning applications seem to have gained a new life as if rising from the dead to haunt us!

Q13: Put the money into areas where it will give the greatest return i.e. benefit the greatest number of residents which equates to new areas not piecemeal additions onto unwilling areas such as Doddinghurst where it will only destroy and not benefit residents.

Provide sufficient affordable parking near stations to enable residents to use public transport and also improve bus services to a point where they are a viable alternative to the car. Where possible and sensible, provide safe cycle routes. Unfortunately this is effectively impossible form the villages as has been demonstrated by previous attempts by the council and voluntary bodies.

Stop the illogical trend to send people to far-away hospitals! Many or most residents have moved out of London and have little or no affinity to it now. However for some reason we are expected to get to Goomayes hospital or Queens or Basildon. It is hard enough for young people to achieve this but when an elderly person needs to visit a spouse in hospital say on a Sunday it is VERY expensive and tiring for them and massively increases their sense of isolation which ultimately causes additional care costs for them. We are a part of Essex to whom we pay council tax and although I acknowledge that Health is from Taxation it seems often to be a fact that is ignored.