The Council should be able to account for the expenditure of previously collected 106 payments before demanding more.

Additionally the provision of a payment of £10,000 for additional primary school places is fatuous if local schools are at capacity

We strongly suppport the use of planning obligations and CIL to fund improvements to the provision of open space and environmental enhancements.

West Horndon has limited infrastructure. Whilst it may have a small station it has other very limited facilities, very infrequent bus service, limited health care you can wait 3 days for an appointment and a primary school that is full. To plan to triple the size of this village and put 42% of the total housing commitment here will mean that the characteristics of a village will disappear. Why are have the remaining 6 villages been excluded from this,

Myself and my young family have just moved into Greenway. A large part of the motiavtion behind the move; was to house my family in the Hutton Mount estate. We would be very keen that the current character remains as is and that it is protected and well worth preserving. This should form part of the ongoing planning process for the local area.

We believe the area as a whole will suffer if every effort is not made to retain the estate in its current form.

We also fear the station access/parking, road infrastructure and schooling already struggles to support the number of local users and must be carefully considered ahead of future development plans.

1. An allocation of 1,500 new homes would make West Horndon several times larger than it is today. It is hard to see how the character and identity could be maintained and this is not detailed by the plan. The allocation is disproportionate when compared to the size of other existing developments within the borough.

2. I would have thought that such a step change in population would require infrastructure improvements. Although the draft LDP does at least acknowledge this, it is not more than an acknowledgement and has not been considered as a constraint to the village development. An Infrastructure Development Plan is referred to as outstanding or to follow.

3. Two thirds of the new homes are proposed on green built but there is no extraordinary justification for this.I commend a plan that would stop such intrusion but would expect the plan to value this over greenbelt development and accordingly prioritise the change of use over any green belt development whilst making provision for employment areas elsewhere. I live on Station Road and already suffer from vibration and noise of heavy lorries travelling to the industrial estate day and night.
4. I have known flooding to occur in the village and understand the Environment Agency show some of the village to be at risk. I would be concerned that greenfield development could worsen this risk but the draft plan does not consider this with substantiated evidence.

There are elements of the Draft Local Development Plan that I support but my concerns for West Horndon as a Professional Engineer and resident are sufficiently great that I object to the Draft LDP. In general I support the change of use of Site 020 and Site 021 but emphatically object to development of Site 037. The draft LDP is not robust in justifying development on green belt land and lacks necessary supporting evidence.

My grounds for objection are thus:
O1. The total of 1,500 new dwellings proposed would approximately triple the size of West Horndon. Maintaining the character of the village would be incompatible with such a disproportionate allocation of new homes.
O2. The development of Site 037 would be on Green Belt land which is protected to prevent urban sprawl. This is in direct conflict with the Draft LDP's Strategic Objective SO7 to "Safeguard the Green Belt". In addition, the Draft LDP has not set out exceptional circumstances that justify the loss of this land. Permitting such a development may set a precedent for future development of West Horndon and surrounding areas.

O3. Environment Agency flood maps (available online) show much of the existing village to be at risk of flooding and there is experience of it occurring recently and historically. Whilst Site 037 is predominantly outside the area shown by the EA to be at flood risk, development on the site without due consideration could increase the flood risk to the existing and proposed development. This would be by reducing the amount of permeable land for rainwater to soak away and also increasing the amount of surface water run-off to be managed. The draft proposal does not address the issue of how flood risk will be affected and mitigated.
O4. Such a marked increase in housing in West Horndon would require a robust appraisal of the current infrastructure's capacity and requirements for upgrade. An Infrastructure Delivery Plan is referred to by the Draft LDP but is noted as 'forthcoming'.
O5. Whilst West Horndon has a railway station, there are presently no plans to increase the level of service for the village. Elsewhere in the borough, Shenfield and Brentwood stations are set to benefit from improved services by the Crossrail project yet they are currently assigned a lower proportion of the housing target.
O6. Whilst I am aware of the need for additional housing in the borough, this should not be at the expense of existing residential areas and where possible it should improve the quality of living to those existing areas whilst also providing a high standard for the new dwellings. There are already other areas within the borough with inappropriate land uses amongst residential areas, such as the Wates Way Industrial Estate in Brentwood and Kestrel Park in Shenfield.

My comments of support are thus:
S1. The change of use of Site 021 and Site 020 to residential would benefit the village, as the draft LDP states. The current use is in conflict with the residential areas. As a resident of Station Road I am persistently disturbed by noise and vibration as heavy goods vehicles pass by on their way to and from the industrial estates. The vibration is particularly intrusive and can be felt throughout my house as large vehicles pass during both day and night.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See Atteched

Mountnessing Parish Council has considered the draft LDP and also taken note of our residents responses made at the recent public presentation by BBC officers in respect of the draft plan.

Whilst the Parish Council accepts there is a need for some new housing in the area we would want to ensure that any developments approved are sustainable and that they are designed to fit in and enhance the existing built areas with care taken to reduce the impact on existing residents. We would like to maintain our main street scene to retain the semi rural feel that the village has and new homes should be designed to fit in rather than stand out in styles sympathetic to the area. Access to potential new developments are clearly a concern to some residents and the Parish Council will want to see that residents views on this are taken into account in any applications made.

We would need assurance that water supplies and sewerage systems would be sufficient to handle additional demand and that the doctors and schools can cope with the extra service users likely to arise. There will certainly be a huge demand for power, water and sewerage disposal if the Hotel site proceeds.

We see a need for more one bedroom properties to be included in any affordable dwelling units that might be built within any new development as the reduction in benefits for unused bedrooms has created a need for smaller properties for affected people to downsize to. The Parish Council would also want to see local people given a priority in the allocation of any such dwellings that become available.

see attached

See Attached

See attached

See attached

See Attached

The proposed development would treble the size of this village and therefore would not be in accordance with the Forward in your Consultation Document that states, "it can do the most good and least harm". Since this enormous amount of building would effectively ruin the village at it stands and make it into a Town, all it shows is that no one has done any research in this whole affair.

It goes on to state "it should have good access to facilities, such as Healthcare. Parks, schools, shops and public transport. The facilities that we now enjoy are only sufficient for the 500 or so dwellings that we currently enjoy and would in no way be adequate for any further buildings.

The Forward also states that the Plan aims to ensure the historic and natural environment are protected yet, you aim to remove the Metropolitan Green Belt which is the only thing separating us from the further sprawl of outer London.

No evidence is put forward as to the infrastructure that is proposed except to say that it might be forthcoming. I hope that this will include water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, and social care of which we are great need. Education for future Nursery, Junior and Senior schools and the ever present flood risk while Brentwood fail to protect us from the water that flows directly down from Brentwood on occasions and floods the A127, is then pumped out onto our surrounding fields and floods parts of the village.

The Borough Council is therefore attempting a consultation on a proposal which is at best poorly researched, and premature in terms of an evidence base. Too little regard has been given to the local community in which you hope to ease your housing requirements by foisting some 43% onto us.

West Horndon is a small village with a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has few shops, no secondary school and is 5 miles from any large centre. The primary school is full to capacity and there is a limited amount of days when we actually have a doctor on site. The railway station has already built the station platform to its full capacity and put on 12 compartment trains. Still the trains are difficult to board in the rush hour.

I urge you to carry out a consultation with the village in order to carry out a study of West Horndon focusing on infrastructure, services, amenities and public transport, you may then change your mind about building 1,500 extra houses here subjecting future populations to lack of transport besides a car and, any other facility that we have all come to rely on.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached response.

See attached letter

WEST HORNDON

I am appalled at the poor quality Plan that has been published.

I am a resident of West Horndon.

My concern is for the ideas put forward about West Horndon.

Firstly, to develop the light industrial site from commercial to residential seems good.

To expand that concept to build on Green Belt is terrible, and very poorly thought out. A national precedent would be formed, thereby running rough-shod through that premis, a point that Brentwood Council says is to be protected.

There is no evidence in the report to consider. The report is therefore unprofessional.
The Infrastructure Delivery Plan is not evidenced, neither is the Modelling Work report.

How can a report be anything other than rubbish, if it is incomplete? There is not even any information on how pedestrians in larger numbers would cross the road from the (currently) commercial area in safety.
There is no reference to proposals on how the railway system would cater for a larger village.
The percentage increase in size of the village is not fair compared to other areas of Brentwood borough. The proposal is trying to squeeze at 'quart into a pint pot'. The proposal for West Horndon is not feasible and not proven or evidenced.
I don't think this Plan will be advertised as it is embarrassing.

1. Major development & West Horndon - the scale of development would treble the village I chose to live in and change the complete character of it and we have been provided with no explanation as to why we should accept 43% of the borough's overall development. There is no real detail to support this allocation. No infrastructure delivery plan has been provided. No assessment of infrastructure has been done - why? We have been asked to comment on a proposal that only has an outline - how can we really comment knowledgeably on that?? The Council are attempting consultation prematurely based on the evidence we have received.

2. The local community has not been involved as the National Planning Policy framework says that it should be. - why not?

3. The Metropolitan Green Belt in West Horndon which is a large part of the plan - according to the National Plan development here is inappropriate and harmful - why then is it in the plan?

4. Sustainable? We have very limited amenities, you can barely get on the train at rush hour, you need to schedule your illness in advance to get a doctor's appointment, although Brentwood is supposed to be our town centre unless you drive it's practically impossible to get to, as the bus service is so infrequent, new residents means more cars also - this clearly shows that the village is not sustainable as a site.

5. Has there been any thought given to the wildlife in the area at all? - no mention of it in the plan

6. Proposals are unclear as to the mix and proportion of land uses but appears to be mainly residential - reason to believe that there will be a harmful effect to the residential amenities of West Horndon

7. The junctions and roads as they are now are inadequate to cope with the traffic we already have - has there been any practical thought put into how this will be managed if we have transport for another 1500 homes? If there has been - it's not in the plan.

8. West Horndon according to the Environment agency (and most home insurance companies also) is considered as at risk of flooding - is it a good idea to build where there is a likelihood of flooding? - once again the plan doesn't appear to have been though through.

9. Where will the local business be moved to? How will the local people employed there get to work if they have no transport? - Local employment will be lost if this is not considered carefully!

10. The Borough based on the information I have seen does not provide a sound plan to be examined by the community and therefore cannot be seen to be responding to the communities needs and is therefore not really enough to go forward for any kind of approval - a serious amount of work needs to be done before this can happen.

11. DM28 - How can we even consider this when the plan doesn't provide accurate locations or numbers for us to consider? How is that West Horndon once again could end up with the highest percentage allocation in the borough? Once again, this can't be considered a plan that is actually ready for consultation - needs a lot more work before.

I don't in principle object to new housing, however , for the reasons outlined above the Council really needs to start again with this and work with the local community so a complete and correct plan could be consulted on.

See Attached

1. Major development & West Horndon - the scale of development would treble the village I chose to live in and change the complete character of it and we have been provided with no explanation as to why we should accept 43% of the borough's overall development. There is no real detail to support this allocation. No infrastructure delivery plan has been provided. No assessment of infrastructure has been don - why? We have been asked to comment on a proposal that only has an outline - how can we really comment knowledgeably on that?? The Council are attempting consultation prematurely based on the evidence we have received.

2. The local community has not been involved as the National Planning Policy framework says that it should be. - why not?

3. The Metropolitan Green Belt are in West Horndon which is a large part of the plan - according to the National Plan development here is inappropriate and harmful - why then is it in the plan?

4. Sustainable? We have very limited amenities, you can barely get on the train at rush hour, you need to schedule your illness in advance to get a doctor's appointment, although Brentwood is supposed to be our town centre unless you drive it's practically impossible to get to as the bus service is so infrequent, new residents means more cars also - this clearly shows that the village is not sustainable as a site.

5. Has there been any though given to the wildlife in the area at all? - no mention of it in the plan

6. Proposals areunclear as to the mix and proportion of land uses but appears to be mainly residential - reason to believe that there will be a harmful effect to the residential amenities of West Horndon

7. The junctions and roads as they are now are inadequate to cope with the traffic we already have - has there been any practical thought put into how this will be managed if we have transport for another 1500 homes? If there has been - it's not in the plan.

8. West Horndon according to the Environment agency (and most home insurance companies also) is considered as at risk of flooding - is it a good idea to build where there is a likelihood of flooding? - once again the plan doesn't appear to have been though through.

9. Where will the local business be moved too? How will the local people employed there get to work if they have no transport? - Local employment will be lost if this is not considered carefully!

10. The Borough based on the information I have seen does not provide a sound plan to be examined by the community and therefore cannot be seen to be responding to the communities needs and is therefore not really enough to go forward for any kind of approval - a serious amount of work needs to be done before this can happem

11. DM28 - How can we even consider this when the plan doesn't provide accurate locations or numbers for us to consider? How is that West Horndon once again could end up with the highest percentage allocation in the borough? Once again, this can't be considered a plan that is actuall ready for consultation - needs a lot more work before.

I have lived in West Horndon for over 40 years and chose to live here once I reached adulthood for the quality of life living in the village would provide, this would fundamentally change based on the Council's ill conceived plan. The Council really needs to start again with this and work with the local community so a complete and correct plan could be consulted on.

I have taken time to read and understand the proposed development and I would like to express my opinion, objections and suggestions.

West Horndon is a small rural low density settlement surrounded by open countryside. I chose to move to West Horndon for this very reason, and I have chosen to stay in the village and raise my family here for the exact same reason.

I have lived in West Horndon for a very long time so have seen the village develop and evolve, yet it retains its low density rural character due to the fact that all the developments to date have been scaled and proportional.

I am in favour of a degree of development provided it is proportional to the size of the current village and does not detract from overall character of the village, its rural status, its culture and its small village feel.

I am keen to see improvements to infrastructure of the village and acceptant that a degree of scaled development may be required to facilitate this.

I am wholeheartedly opposed to the development plan that has been proposed to date as I feel it is wholly disproportional and would swamp the current village and change its character completely.

My objections to the proposed development:
Impact to me, my family and environment of building work during development - clearly there would be significant increase in plant traffic, noise, dirt, dust, and air pollution whilst the development work is being conducted which I feel would disrupt our daily lives to an unacceptable level.

Impact to the village status, community, culture and feel once development is complete - the proposed development would almost treble the size of West Horndon which I believe will be significantly harmful to the character of the village, its community, and the overall 'small village' feel which I value highly.

Potential impact to the value of my property - a considerable part of the value of my property is due to the fact it is located in a small, sleepy rural village surrounded by open land and with a healthy sense of community. Exclusivity is also a factor as is the value of comparable properties with the surrounding area all of which are likely to be diminished by the proposed development.

Increased risk of flooding at my property, West Horndon as a whole and the surrounding area - West Horndon has to my knowledge flooded three times in the last 60 years, the most recent of which was in 2012 and this was despite significant drainage improvements made following the previous flooding in 1981. West Horndon and Bulphan are recognised by the Environment agency as being a flood risk. My property in Freshwell Gardens is located at the edge of the village and suffers with localised flooding in the grounds every year. As a result in the continued deterioration of the drainage for the fields and railway embankment surrounding my property, this localised flooding has over the last few years become progressively worse resulting in an ongoing rising damp issue in my house. Clearly any further development within the West Horndon area will once again reduce the natural drainage raising the water table in areas on the outside of the village such as my property. Even if flood alleviation measures are taken as part of the proposed development it will simply move the problem to surrounding areas such as Bulphan.

Impact to roads and junctions with regard to both safety and convenience - current traffic levels mean that for considerable periods of each day the junctions and roads in and around the village are congested and difficult to negotiate. For example, between 07.45 and 09.15 exiting West Horndon via the A128 and A127 takes on average 15 minutes longer than times when there are lower traffic levels. There are already a considerable number of collisions and incidents at the junctions and roads in and around the village each month. The scale of the proposed development will clearly result in a significant increase in traffic compounding the congestion and safety concerns way beyond practical or acceptable levels. The roads and junctions in and around West Horndon are simply inadequate to cope with any further increase in traffic.

Impact to Green Belt land - I firmly believe in the fundamental principal of the Green Belt and I do not feel that 'housing demand' constitutes the 'exceptional circumstances' justified to build upon land that has been set aside to prevent exactly this type of urban sprawl. The proposed development will also destroy land habited by a wide variety of wildlife which I feel is unacceptable.

Impact to the security of the village - currently incidents of violence, vandalism, public order offences and other such crimes in West Horndon are isolated and minimal. Increasing the population of West Horndon by the numbers proposed in the development plan would inevitably see a proportional increase in such issues. Currently residents feel safe on the streets and secure in their houses, but I feel trebling the size of the village would destroy this feeling. Every couple of years West Horndon suffers with small groups of teenagers congregating and exhibiting antisocial behavior as there is nowhere for them to go and nothing for them to do. These groups are traditionally circa 5 to 7 youths and is therefore relatively easy to manage. An increase in housing to the scale proposed would likely result in a significant increase in such troublesome groups that would be much harder to police and would be harmful to me, my family and the other residents of the village.

In addition to my objections to the proposed development, I have the following concerns regarding inadequacies of the process employed by the local planning authority to date:

I do not feel that my family and I have been effectively consulted on the proposal. We have not had any meaningful proactive engagement on the subject and I do not feel we have been allowed to be involved in the development of the local plans or planning decisions.

The proposal does not include detail anything that will benefit the me, my family or the village as a whole. For example the proposal simply states that a 'infrastructure delivery plan is forthcoming' rather than including any detail of such plans.

The proposal does not detail anything that will mitigate against the harmful impacts of the development.

The proposal does not demonstrate that due consideration has been given to the quality and capability of the infrastructure, water supply, sewage, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and ability to meet forecast demands.

My suggestions for the development of West Horndon:
I am in favour of proportional, scaled and mixed use development as part of the mutually agreed evolution of West Horndon.

I believe West Horndon would be able to take up to a maximum of 200 new residential properties by redeveloping the currently underutilised industrial areas. This would mean the development would not encroach upon Green Belt land and would be of a scale that would not destroy the rural low density village feel of West Horndon.

Within this development I would like to see an increase in sheltered accommodation and care home facilities for the aged and infirmed. I would also like to see a mixture of affordable, mid-price and high value residential properties and both rationalization and modernisation of the industrial units that remain.

To facilitate this additional housing the village would require the long overdue improvements to the current infrastructure ie, flood protection/drainage, bus links, road junctions, broadband speeds, policing, facilities for the youth (including a small skate-park and a new Scout HQ) and utilities.