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 rationalisation 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.

See Attached

West Horndon is a small village community and the preferred option will be a major development alongside it which will triple the size of the village and would change its character. The village has 750 properties and the proposal is to add 1,500 additional dwellings. I disagree, this is too many dwellings and will not benefit the village but only the developers. It will leave the borough council and village with many problems to sort out and pay for in the future.

The Doomsday book mentions the village of West Horndon. The scale of the development proposed is major and disproportionate, and does not seem to enhance the village but create an new separate village to one side.

An infrastructure delivery plan and flood risk assessment needs to be carried out before deciding to build any new dwellings in West Horndon. The public transport to the rest of the borough is poor and unreliable. The primary school is at full capacity and there is no secondary school in the village. The doctors surgery is at full capacity and takes several days to get an appointment. It would be good if additional resources could be made available to have the doctors surgery open before 9am and after5pm and on Saturdays. The broadband is poor and it would be good, essential indeed to have fibre optic broadband available in the village. We don't have a dentist, an optician, a chiropractor or a podiatrist. The village probably doesn't need permanent health care practitioners beyond a doctors, but it would be good to have easy available access to these. Especially for the older community.

The consultation exercise on a draft, premature proposal which needs more evidence before we can really feel properly consulted upon.

This plan and the consultation process feels to me to be done from the Council and planners down to the local residents of West Horndon. The local community needs and wishes need to be heard and acknowledged. I do not want building to take place on the proposed plot of 037. It is green belt and the only boundary to is the A127.

If West Horndon needs to accept additional properties in the village they should be built on brown field areas such as the West Horndon Industrial Estate. Other areas in the village are Elliott's night club former plot. and possibly Timmermam's nursery nearby on the 127. Development should be low density and tasteful in keeping with the village.

Other locations for development to be considered are: Hutton Industrial Estate, Waits Way Industrial Estate, Ingatestone garden centre. Also for north of the borough groups of houses with independent sewage system could be built, such as those in St Marys Lane.

I do not support building on metropolitan green belt, but if green belt land in West Horndon needs to have building then I might agree to building along Station Road if the park was extended behind the dwellings to provide a boundary. The extended and improved park would provide safe areas for walking in the dark winter evenings and could provide an exceptional benefit the village.

To enhance West Horndon it would also need a local shop that opens later than 8pm; a free to use ATM; additional money and resources to allow the village hall to run classes and events after work hours; a completely upgraded bus service with frequent and reliable journeys to Brentwood to access opticians, dentists, etc; the doctors surgery would need more resources to allow it to open for longer hours and on Saturdays.

The village is made up of a low density housing and surrounded by open countryside. Plot 037 has been farmed for years with oil seed rape, wheat and peas and provide food for the UK. Building on that green belt will reduce the land available for wildlife, loss of ancient hedgerows and borders, and will destroy the rural character of the village.

If any dwellings are to be built on West Horndon Brown Field Sites the residents should really have a say in the mix, proportion and density of the dwellings proposed. The draft plan and road shows were unable to give further information on the dwellings proposed and we would like an opportunity to feed into this. Delivery times to proposed new retail units will need to be limited to avoid noise pollution to existing and new properties on sites 020 and 021. new properties along existing houses should be kept low so as to avoid over looking gardens that are currently not over looked.

The 127 and 128 roads are already unable to cope with the morning and evening commuters. I am sure the developers will not pay to build an extra lane and remove several homes to help solve the problem. The junction at Station Road and the 128 would need to be redesigned to accept traffic crossing the A128 and will probably need traffic lights or a major roundabout. St Mary's lane is windy and narrow and has several small stone bridges. A modern cement bridge would be ugly and would not enhance the village.

The junction at the station, the industrial estate and village is dangerous. The proposed low level roundabout at the junction (which would then be a junction for 5 major exits) is insufficient and dangerous for children crossing the road to and from the school bus.

The proposal suggests that the remaining industrial estate and the new dwellings share the same roads which is not safe for children and the older generation.

The pedestrian entrance to the railway station is shared with the vehicles. There is no footpath.

The bus stop is beside the waste collection amenity site for the borough and the car access area doubles up as the bus stop.

Driving from the 127 to the village is dangerous as the exits are inadequate.

Plot 037 is the flood plain for Thorndon Park. It has had severe flooding in 1958, 1981 and 2012. An assessment of the drainage in the area would need to be carried out before any building is planned in West Horndon. Bulphan and West Horndon are at risk of flooding on the Environment Agency's web site show. Flood prevention in the area will have a knock on affect to land south of West Horndon.

Sites 020 and 021 are brownfield sites and are currently employment land. It is necessary that existing businesses will be helped to relocate to near by sites and that the offer is attractive enough to avoid them moving to outside the borough.

Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies, however this plan is still very draft and has lots of gaps to be filled. For example around flooding, public and road transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, rail. These need to be carried out to make the proposal robust and comprehensive. The borough council need to carry out a study of West Horndon in order to accurately calculate whether its plans are realistically affordable. It is better and easier to find out before any dwellings are built.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

I'm writing to express my deep concerns over the Council's Local Development Plan which has identified West Horndon as an area for 'significant growth'. West Horndon is a small village of no more than 500 homes in the Village itself; the Ward has no more than 701 homes. 1500 homes would more than treble the size of the village and completely change the character of West Horndon, which the LDP promises not to do in its vision; 'to minimise the negative impacts of development on people, the environment'. 1500 homes even if it is mixed development will most certainly have a serious impact on West Horndon's residents and the surrounding environment.

The plan indicates that West Horndon aligns with the LDP's plans being a Transport Led Development. Yes we have a station but the station platform has already been extended and C2C our current providers have made it very clear that they have no plans now or in the future to develop the station or run more frequent trains, and no investment will be made to improve services or cope with increase use. The trains are already busy leaving West Horndon at rush hour. The station has only 1 platform going into London. With so many new people to the village and quite probably using the trains, the safety of passengers piling onto one platform for trains that run at best, every 15 minutes would be questionable.

The LDP also talks about the aim to increase employment within Brentwood and once someone steps on the West Horndon line they immediately leave the borough and take their money and income elsewhere. We cannot get a train into Brentwood directly from West Horndon and the A128 is already over loaded with traffic. With no possibility to widen this road any traffic travelling into Brentwood will only exacerbate the already heavy traffic through Ingrave. It can sometimes take 30-45 minutes to reach Brentwood and with such a poor bus service connecting us to Brentwood many residents shop elsewhere or travel by train to other towns and again leave the borough. It is far easier and speedier to reach Thurrock, Grays and Romford shopping areas, which is why as a Village it is difficult to see how we are connected to Brentwood.

Our secondary school children have no choice but to attend schools across Brentwood, by increasing the number of houses in this village you are asking secondary schools to increase their intake or find places for our children in locations beyond reasonable travelling distances. They have to travel by bus through Ingrave at the moment and more children will only increase the already heavy traffic through this area.

The local Primary school is already at full capacity and many of the families in the village moved to the village in order to give their children a more family centred schooling experience. Almost all of the children walk to school and there are very strong links between the families and accountability between them and the school. It is the reason most of our family have moved to the village. Trebling the size of the village would most definitely destroy this level of accountability. This is the character of West Horndon and I fear this level of development would ruin this.

Infrastructure will not be in place before the build starts and the LDP does not make it clear how this will appear or what will be provided. For the local Primary school this means having no choice but to take new children that move into the area before any funds and infrastructure can be put into place to expand it. There is a risk current families in the village will therefore not be able to get their children a place at the local school if they happen to live further from the school than the new houses. How is this fair? Without the sale of houses and a clearer picture of numbers of children it will be impossible for the council to clearly see what level of development the school will need. This will impact upon the education of our own children because class sizes will increase and teaching space will be reduced. Teachers will have no choice but to divide their attention between more children and this will inevitably affect the quality of teaching our children receive. No guarantees have been made to protect this or the future children who the school are forced to take because other local schools cannot accommodate them. Or families will have to travel to other local schools, which defeats the idea that most if not all the children walk to school and will only increase the level of traffic through Station Road.

It currently takes 3 working days to get a doctors appointment within the village and Ingrave do not have a Health Centre, the only other option is to go to a doctors in Brentwood, a long journey during rush hour or roadworks particularly if it is an emergency. Now the 'Infrastructure plan is forthcoming', what does that mean? We haven't seen anything and the consultation process is nearly over. Will the doctors be improved? Will the surgery be allocated more doctors? By trebling the size of the village the doctors surgery has made it clear it could not cope with the increase of these numbers. No plans have been made available to show how this will improve. Many of our residents have to travel out of the village to get their prescriptions as the doctors surgery does not stock all medicines and many elderly patients have to waits days for medication to be delivered into the village as they cannot travel out, which is frankly unacceptable.

The impact on local roads, the A127 and A128 are already inadequate to deal with more traffic, which 1500 would certainly provide. The A127 is at a standstill most mornings into London and then again heading towards Southend in the evenings. The traffic into Brentwood on the A128 is already at breaking point and it would be impractical to widen the road. With 1500 homes being built in the village I seriously worry about the possibility of increased accidents and increased pollution and damage to the environment caused by more cars sitting in traffic jams on these already busy roads.

I am also very concerned about the loss of fields above the Industrial Estates. The fields above this area act as a soak for the waters which drain off Thorndon Park and over the A127, which in itself has recently with heavy rain flooded many times (Removing the threat of flooding for many residents east of these field). Without this area the waters will flood local houses and will travel quickly down towards to railway lines and through the culverts there and onto other areas such as Bulphan, which already is a serious flood risk area. The NPPF makes it very clear that no development should in any way impact upon other areas, which it most surely would. Any further flood alleviation scheme would increase the risk of flooding areas to the south of the railway line. The Village has already suffered serious flooding in 1958, 1981 and more recently in 2012 on Christmas Day. The allocation in the LDP to strategically develop land extending 25 hectares will seriously affect the potential flood risk for existing residents backing onto these areas. Many residents including my parents who moved in this year in June are finding it extremely difficult to get buildings insurance because of existing flood risks and 1500 homes would most definitely increase this risk and I can't see how any of the new houses on the Greenbelt fields will get buildings insurance with the knowledge of existing flood risks. How can you responsibly build homes to sell knowing that insurance companies will not provide needed insurance to get a mortgage? There is no evidence that the council has carried out any assessment of drainage in the area and the Environment Agency's website identifies West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding.

The loss of Greenbelt in the village will be significant and it does seem ridiculously unfair to be taking Greenbelt from this area and no other. Why has a small village being allocated almost half of the total number of houses required in the Borough? Why has Ingatestone not received a fairer portion of the proposed build as they have a station much like that of West Horndon that also runs into London? Both Brentwood town and Shenfield are getting 1000 homes and Ingatestone receives 130 homes and that's it?! If we are going to have to lose Greenbelt it seems only fair that as they have a station that they also receive a fair share of the allocation of houses. The NPPF makes it clear that only under exceptional circumstances will it be acceptable to justify building on Greenbelt land, however recent clarifications have made it clear that housing demand is unlikely to constitute justifiable reason to build on Greenbelt.

I would like to see the Timmermans nursery on the A127 considered as an alternative site. Land which is Greenbelt, but already being used for another purpose. Why is the Hutton Industrial Estate not being put forward as a Brownfield site suitable for development, much like West Horndon Industrial Estate it has some privately owned areas and others that are not. Hutton Industrial Estate much like our own Industrial Estate also runs through compact residential areas and sees large trucks travelling by residents homes, which I'm sure they see as an annoyance. This would seriously impact upon the need to redevelop Greenbelt areas.

I am also deeply concerned about the lack of communication with residents over this period and the simple suggestion that this plan has incorporated residents' views. From when? I am not aware of 1 resident who was in any way fully aware of the possibility of developing the Greenbelt sites, which negates the LDP statements that this consultation period was as a response to residential feedback!

The construction of such a huge number of houses on the edge of our village will destroy its open setting and rural character. The qualities that so many of the residents love about our village will be obliterated. We moved to West Horndon to live in a village, surrounded by open countryside. Your plan apprears to have fundamental shortcomings and goes against so many points noted in national guidance and the planning framework.

As my 8 year old son asked yesterday, 'Why would they want to build so many houses in a nice little village?'.

I object wholly to the proposal of 1500 houses. West Horndon is a small village and many people live here because of that. The infrastructure we have here can no way cope with this many houses and we have spoken to c2c and there are no plans to increase the already packed trains. The roads or should I say road in and out of the village cannot cope with a possibility of up to 3000 cars running through the village let alone the building work traffic that will also pass through, this in my eyes will not make West Horndon a better place. There is also the flood issue as we are on a flood plain here as Christmas day 2012 will show you, and we pride ourselves on the green belt around us which you are wanting to take from us. What we cannot see is the benefits to the residents of West Horndon will be and what will happen to our small amount of shops, will they just end up boarded up as you are planning to build a shopping centre. This we do not want to see. This will also have a huge impact on the countryside and rural setting of the village, no consideration has been given to the wildlife and bio diversity issues. We are led to believe that the existing industrial site will be moved to Childerditch lane has any thought gone to the hundreds of people that are employed here that many of these come to work on a train or unless you are moving the train station these people will be unable to get to work maybe causing loss of employment. National guidance states that LPA should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure. water supply ,wastewater and its treatment ,energy , telecommunications , health social care, education and flood risk to meet forecast demands. This has NOT been done. We pride ourselves on our small rural village and this we want it to stay we do not want West Horndon to turn into a town which in turn could mean more crime and as there is no mention of upping the police presence this could only mean disaster. Could this also mean our house prices will drop as we wont be an exclusive small village but a town as our size could triple will the council compensate us for this and cut our council tax!!! Please don't make us a big concrete place to live surrounded by grid locked roads and keep us rural.

Whilst I recognise that the borough requires significant housing development, potentially in line in numbers with that identified within the Local Plan 2015-2030, I strongly object to the proposed concentration of new dwellings, over a sustained period of time, within the identified West Horndon Opportunity Area.

The construction of 200-250 new dwellings within West Horndon, every year, for 15 years, will firstly expand the town beyond recognition. Based on the current population size (which is broadly stable), the proposals would see it essentially triple in size. Whilst there are proposals for improved infrastructure, it is questionable whether this is truly sustainable within the land area proposed. The density of construction required will not be in-fitting with this beautiful countryside location, where houses are two stories tall at most, with a significant proportion of bungalows. High rise or even medium rise flats are not at all in-fitting with current town character.

Secondly, as our council, Brentwood Borough Council has the obligation to serve existing residents, not just new ones. Those who have made West Horndon their home will see a material depression in their house values as the 200-250 new dwellings come on to the market. There will be no compensation to the existing residents, which feels highly inequitable for such a small population.

Thirdly. Whilst the attractions of expanding at West Horndon are clear, one must question market demand for 200-250 new dwellings each year, in the same place, over 15 years. This demand is unproven, and highly questionable. Is it right that just under half of individuals looking to live in the entire Brentwood Borough, will want to all live in the same place? In a completely new development? It is worth highlighting on this point that the newer, small sized dwellings completed within West Horndon more recently have struggled to sell, particularly those allocated as "affordable housing" (development in question: 191 Thorndon Avenue). Simply finding one place to build nearly half of the dwellings required by the Borough does not mean people will decide to live in them - they need to be in varied locations reflecting local demand.

Lastly, your plans to allocate the bulk of all required traveller sites to West Horndon again looks highly inequitable. I would also question suitability - West Horndon has been flagged as a key area for expansion due to its location to rail links; in essence, this is land prime for development for commuters and local business workers. Travellers, with limited ties to one location, do not have these requirements and indeed it is not clear why the same land so prime for employment and fixed residential communities, also makes sense for a traveller community.

Hence in summary, I strongly object to the proposal in its current form. West Horndon is a small village that whilst can accept a decent level of development, should not be targeted at such a level. It appears that it has been viewed as a fix for the entire borough, and indeed I fear that if these plans are bourn out you will end up with a bloated stock of houses in one location with limited demand vs. supply. The solution needs to provide housing where it is actually needed, and well balanced across the Borough. This proposal fails on both counts.

[see attached comment for further submission]

See attachment

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed development of West Horndon.

Myself and my family have lived in West Horndon for over 15 years and move to the village specifically because of it quiet, idyllic and peaceful location. West Horndon has a "small village" feel and the proposals will simply destroy that atmosphere and result in yet another dysfunctional town being created.

Having reviewed the proposals, I believe that you have not taken due care and consideration before reaching this stage of the process. Specifically:

- Complete lack of proper assessment: National guidelines states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of the infrastructure, water supply, wastewater, energy, telecommunications, utilities, waste management, social waste, education and flood risk. This has clearly not been carried out by the Local Authority.

- Flood Risk - West Horndon has suffered from flodding in 1958, 1981 and as recently as 2012. The proposed development on land extending to some 25 hectares has been proposed without and assessment of drainage in the area - in fact the Environment Agency's own web site shows West Horndon as being at risk of flood, so I am flabbergasted that you have not carried out a formal review in relation to this matter.

- Involvement of the Local Community - Myself and my family feel completely excluded from the consulation process to date. The National Planning Policy Framework makes it clear that local authorities should involve all sections of the community; this has clearly been a top-down process only, where the needs and input of the local community have been completely ignored.

- Green Belt - We have, over the past decade, witnessed many areas of natural beauty and green belt being destroyed in the UK. This appears to be yet another step to destroy local green belt, as the larger part of the proposed development is within a defined green belt area.

- Local Infrastructure Assessment - It is clear that there has been a complete lack of assessment of the impact the proposed development would have on local infrastructure. The local community will clearly bear the brunt of the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked back gardens, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits.

In summary, I do not believe the local authority has given due care and attention to this proposal before publishing its findings. I would strongly recommend that you, in consultation with local community, carry out a study of West Horndon, focusing on its infrastructure, service amenities and public transport needs, before taking the matter any further.

Finally, I will be taking these matters up with out local Member of Parliament and seeking independent legal advice on the process you have adopted to date. I believe you have looked to fast-track your decision and have not followed the agreed national process and guidelines, something I am extremely disappointed with.

I'm writing in relation to the Brentwood Borough Council's Local Development Plan, in specific section CP4 which identifies West Horndon for an increase of 1500 homes. West Horndon is small Village of no more than 500 homes in the Village itself and the Ward has no more than 701 homes altogether. 1500 homes would more than treble the size of the village and change the character of West Horndon, which the LDP promises not to do in its vision; 'to minimise the negative impacts of development on people, the environment'. 1500 homes even if it is mixed development will most certainly have a serious impact on West Horndon's residents and the surrounding environment and this cannot be ignored.

I have to ask why West Horndon has been singled out for 'significant and future growth'? The plan indicates that West Horndon aligns with the Local Development Plan objectives as a Transport Led Development. Yes we have a station and a platform which has been extended however C2C our current providers have made it very clear that they have no plans now or in the future to develop the station or run more frequent trains, which means no investment will be made to improve services or cope with increase use.

We cannot get a train into Brentwood directly and the A128 is already over loaded with traffic. With no possibility to widen the A128 and any traffic travelling into Brentwood will only increase the already heavy traffic through Ingrave. We have an extremely poor bus service, which means residents often don't leave the village or have to wait hours for the next bus to return to the village. It is far easier and speedier to reach Thurrock, Grays and Romford shopping areas, which is why as a Village it is difficult to see how we are connected to Brentwood.

It currently takes 3 working days to get a doctor's appointment within the village and Ingrave do not have a Health Centre, the only other option is to go to a doctors in Brentwood. Now the 'Infrastructure plan is forthcoming', what does that mean? We haven't seen anything to indicate what will happen to our current health service and the consultation process is nearly over. Will the doctors be improved? Will the surgery be allocated more doctors? The doctor's surgery has made it clear it could not cope with the increased number of homes suggested for West Horndon. With many elderly members in the village who rely upon these services there are serious concerns that many people's health will be put at risk. Many of our residents have to travel out of the village to get their prescriptions as the doctors surgery does not stock all medicines and many elderly patients have to waits days for medication to be delivered into the village as they cannot travel out, which is unacceptable.

The impact on local roads, the A127 is at a standstill most mornings into London and then again heading towards Southend in the evenings. The traffic into Brentwood on the A128 is already at breaking point and it would be impractical to widen it. The current access to the A127 from Thorndon Avenue is extremely dangerous and requires a 90 degree angle turn into Thorndon Avenue from the A127. Trying to join the A127 from Thorndon Avenue require dangerous increases of speed and a very small slip road. Many people take the corner too fast and don't anticipate other drivers approaching up from Thorndon Avenue. With 1500 homes being built in the village there will most certainly be an increase in accidents.

Living on the west side of Thorndon Avenue I am very concerned about the loss of fields above the Industrial Estates. These fields area act as a soak for waters which drain off Thorndon Park and over the A127, which floods when we have heavy rain. Without this area the waters will flood local houses and will travel quickly down towards to railway lines and through the culverts there and onto other areas such as Bulphan, which already is a serious flood risk area. The National Planning Policy Framework makes it very clear that no development should in anyway have a negative impact upon any neighbouring areas. Any further flood alleviation scheme would increase the risk of flooding areas to the south of the railway line. We learned when surveys were completed on our house that the Village has already suffered serious flooding in 1958, 1981 and more recently in 2012 on Christmas Day. The allocation in the LDP to strategically develop land west of our property in excess of 25 hectares will seriously affect the potential flood risk for existing residents. Having recently moved to this area in August 2013 we found our previous Buildings Insurance provider could not cover us because of the risk of flooding and have found it very difficult to get buildings insurance. We would be very concerned about the risk of more flooding in this area with the suggested 1000 homes west of Thorndon Avenue. I'm sure many of those new builds will find it difficult to get buildings and contents insurance because of the villages previous flood history. There is no evidence that Brentwood Borough Council have carried out any assessment of drainage in the area and the Environment Agency's website identifies West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding.

The loss of Greenbelt in the village will be very significant and it does seem extremely unfair to be taking Greenbelt from this area and apparently no other! We have to ask why Ingateston has not received a fairer portion of the proposed build as they have a station much like that of West Horndon. Why is it that Ingateston have only received 130 homes and that's it! If we are going to have to lose Greenbelt it seems only fair that this lose be shared equally across the borough and not simply from one area; West of Thorndon Avenue. The NPPF makes it clear that only under exceptional circumstances will it be acceptable to justify building on Greenbelt land and recent clarifications from Government have made it clear that housing demand is an unlikely justifiable reason to build on Greenbelt.

I have not found a single resident who was in anyway fully aware of the possibility of developing the Greenbelt sites, which negates the LPD statements that this consultation period was as a response to residential feedback. What guarantees do we have that this 'master planning' will happen and that developers will not simply do as they wish and build lots and lots of houses to make money? Who will be responsible for conducting this change and who can we as residents call out to ensure that promises are being met?

The Doctor here is located in a converted 3 bed house which would not cope. The existing Doctors do not have more than 33 hours of surgery time which is insufficient now.

The whole area is on a 'Flood Plain' and the extra houses would make the area more liable to flooding. We have had (2) floods in the village 1958 and 1982.

General Development Concerns
The only definite thing about Policy CP4 "West Horndon Opportunity Area" is a proposal for 1500 houses. The plans provide no further details other than outlines of the 3 target areas - sites 020, 021, and 037.

Policy DM28 "Gypsy and Traveller Provision" West Horndon mentions a Travellers' Site at West Horndon but no indication as to where.

In these circumstances it is difficult to make specific comments on such a major proposal. For these reasons and the reasons below I am rejecting both Policies CP4 and DM28.

Infrastructure
The plan has no infrastructure change details. Just a general statement to the effect that necessary infrastructure changes can be made.

The existing infrastructure serving West Horndon is insufficient at this present time to cope with the existing village needs. It is difficult to see how the extra development can be supported when the major infrastructure changes that are required have not been established first. Specifics of the changes to be made, and the how, when, and where, and individual organisations responsible for providing those changes need to be presented alongside the projections of things like 50 houses per year in the rollout plan in order to assess how the figure of 1500 houses was arrived at and how such expansion can be supported.

Unless there is a legal obligation to provide the infrastructure before or during the build then all that will happen is 50 houses per year will be built and nothing will be done until something breaks - if then. This has been my experience in this and other areas.

It is unclear as to why West Horndon is considered to be the target for such large development with its known infrastructure problems such as flooding, drainage, sewerage, road/rail capacity etc., yet areas in the north of the borough with those same issues are not. The statement that necessary infrastructure changes can be made could equally apply to those areas north of the borough as well as West Horndon.

Scale of the Proposed Expansion
West Horndon is currently a small rural village of low density development surrounded by open spaces. In the core of the village there are around 500 houses, with more in outlying areas, making it a well sought after location.

Adding 1500 homes to the village core would nearly quadruple its size, and treble the size of the parish. It would effectively turn West Horndon into a town, destroying its rural setting and character, eroding the community spirit and significantly reducing house prices as the reasons for West Horndon being a sought after location would no longer exist.

Green Belt
A large proportion of the 1500 houses are proposed to be built on site 037, which is Green Belt land, indeed Metropolitan Green Belt land. National planning policy indicates that such land should be permanently open, and housing development is considered an inappropriate use for such land except in exceptional circumstances. The Brentwood Borough Local Plan does not detail what the exceptional circumstances are to justify releasing Metropolitan Green Belt land.
If those houses get built on such land, developers will have a powerful case to build more homes on adjacent green belt land once the precedent is set. Once this starts to happen, the boundaries of West Horndon will be forgotten and its periphery will become a sprawl of housing out of all proportion to the village centre.

The Brentwood Borough Local Plan not only seems to conflict with National Planning Policy on Green Belt retention but actively seems to encourage more than just this "one-off" release of Green Belt with the inclusion of the statement on the first page of Policy CP4: West Horndon Opportunity Area which begins "West Horndon could give rise to further capacity..."

Mixed Use Development
Policy CP4 mentions the mixed use of the land for housing, employment, retail, community, open space, education and health purposes in various different sections of the policy. It also mentions encouraging local employment to reduce travel, particularly by car.

However, the closure of most of the industrial units in the brownfield sites of 020 and 021 on the plan to make way for the homes, and the relocation of the businesses to the former M25 works site 010A, will slash local employment opportunities within walking distance of the village and create the need for additional traffic (even if the "Green route", whatever that is supposed to be, does ever materialise) as there is no rail link to site 010A and the site is definitely not within walking distance of the village.

There is no mention in the plan for any other uses of the land in sites 020, 021, and 037, except for housing.

Gypsy and Traveller Provision
The initial estimated 14 traveller pitches is out of proportion to the much smaller allocations elsewhere. West Horndon would be taking nearly half of the total pitch requirements.

No indication has been given as to where the 14 pitches are to be located. As National Planning Policy states that the use of Green Belt for traveller/gipsy sites is classes as inappropriate development, that leaves just the brownfield sites of 020 and 021.

A rail link in the form of West Horndon station has been one of the reasons given for attracting potential development. But in the case of travellers and gypsies this is irrelevant due to the nature of the people and their work.

Nearby access to facilities such as primary schools and secondary schools is another requirement for such a site. West Horndon has a very limited range of amenities and facilities. It has very few shops, even less that are actually open, a primary school which is at full capacity now and no secondary school.

Healthcare is another requirement. The limited hours of opening and service provided by the surgery in the village cannot meet the needs of the existing residents now.

The village is remote from the larger centres of Brentwood, Basildon and Upminster.

Such a site would harm the character and appearance of the village and result in an unacceptable visual impact. House prices in the area would plummet. The events of Dale Farm have proved how a supposed limit of a legal number of pitches can mushroom out of control. Even today on Oak Farm, the remaining legal part of the Dale Farm settlement, a large number of travellers are cluttering up the area far in excess of the legal permitted maximum and have been doing so since the Dale Farm eviction.

Given the above, the travellers with their larger than average families, could soon start overwhelming such a small rural village as West Horndon.

The above points illustrate why West Horndon is not a suitable location for a travellers' site.

If one of the main reasons for not building new houses out in the villages is due to poor infrastructure why do you not improve infrastructure? This will not only produce a a dispersed and well balanced community but also benefit the existing residents with improved bus services, shops etc. If it's not good enough for new families to move into why should those there already suffer with below par services?

It is essential that existing developments do not become over-crowded causing a strain on existing infrastructure. The impact of traffic and parking must be considered as these are both significant issues in the Brentwood Borough