I totally support the Draft Local Plan for these reasons:
1. The Bedroom Tax tried to force many families to downsize, but there is nowhere for them to go
2. There are 53 homeless families in temporary bed and breakfast accommodation waiting for a home, in Brentwood
3. Many elderly people wish to downsize to small properties, again none available
4. There are over 1000 people on Brentwood housing waiting lists
5. The time has come when more homes are desperately needed to be built. I appreciate how many homeowners in rural Brentwood purchased their homes many years ago at very reasonable cost, for the benefits of green open spaces, safe for children tto grow and breath good clean air. But times are changing for everyone. People need homes, it's time for the selfish NIMBY to consider the right of many and be prepared to share a bit more of their much cherished space.

I support the proposed draft plan that I have examined in detail, including having questions answered at the Tipps Cross drop in event. This is a well presented plan.

The local plan does not seem to be very local to the rest of the borough considering of the proposed 5000 new homes 3000 are to be located in just 2 developments at the extreme edges of the borough. And relatively close to each other. So although these areas will have road links the people in them will not see themselves as part of Brentwood. They will gravitate towards other areas or centres. . These developments along with the proposed Enterprise areas in the A127 corridor will put too much strain on the junction of the A127 and the M25. The A127 is already congested. There is no provision for improvement whereas the A12 is being improved. The public transport from West Horndon to Brentwood town centre is infrequent and not fit for purposed if the size of the village is to be doubled. The Dunton Garden development although in the borough boundary will, to all intense purposes, be a development of Basildon (Laindon) and will have no connect physical connection to Brentwood and will have no identity with the Borough. So apart from achieving a quota of housing and gaining some local tax for the borough any additional economic benefits will fall to Basildon. The lack provision of school places in the local areas to these developments will lead to further traffic flows to and from the wider areas.

And in what order will the developments take place?

I would like to see the smaller developments take place first.
Organic growth will be much less intrusive and will allow the area to slowly digest the changes.
Only when these options have run out should larger developments on Green Belt land be considered. the used of Green Belt should be a last resort.

Support the Plan.

See attached.

Support.

Refer to attachement.

I object to The London Development Plan, there is only a housing shortage due to People moving into Brentwood and the already overcrowded south East.

The solution is for the government to address the North south divide, not to encourage it by building more properties in the south east.

To build properties on Green belt Land is Fundamentally wrong!

In general I support the key policies as outlined in the Draft Local Plan, and in particular appreciate the efforts to keep the Green Belt as far as possible intact. Also, the designation of specific Strategic Development Sites, in areas aimed to provide as little disruption to existing communities as possible, is to be commended, with the proviso that the provision of the necessary infrastructure, in roads and transport, education, employment, health, drainage and sanitation is ensured through the plan, and that the financing structure, largely from the windfall profits from Green Belt re-designation to Development Land, is negotiated and contractually secured in advance. In particular, the strategic site at Dunton Hills should not be recommended for inclusion until this financing is secured.

The Draft Local Plan has a clear omission in relation to the special character of the area of Hutton Mount. This area plays a specific and key role in the economy of the Borough, providing the majority of the executive housing available in the entire area, and hence enabling the Borough to attract and retain national business headquarters, and the concomitant inward investment from the private sector. The beneficial consequences in terms of employment creation, ancillary businesses and NNDR and Council Tax income to support the more deprived residents of the Borough are transparent. The special character Hutton Mount has enjoyed the protection of a specific policy H15 of the 2005 Replacement Local Plan, which has been effective in ensuring the estate remains leafy and semi-rural and has not been urbanised through excessively dense development.

The benefits of protecting the special character of Hutton Mount should be brought out in SO3, SO7 and SO10. The existing protections include a density of no more than 10 dwellings per hectare; a minimum frontage of 18.3m; a minimum space to the next building of 1.2m; and retention of the leafy and semi-rural character. These protections should be afforded Hutton Mount in the relevant policy sections of the new Local Development Plan, and reference should be made to a Supplementary Planning Document where the special nature and character of Hutton Mount and the requirements of development on the estate are laid out in detail.

See attached.

I think that it is a good idea to build a new town so that transport links, schools and doctors can be built in.

In our area there are poor roads with no pavements or lighting so it would be dangerous for families. Also the schools and doctors' surgeries are full to overflowing. Transport for commuters would be difficult as parking would be needed at a station.

See attached.

Supports plan.

Support Plan

See attached and summary below:
Summary
It is considered that Brentwood Council has not thoroughly tested all the available options to accommodate the housing requirement within Brentwood. The National Planning Policy Guidance and earlier advice from the Planning Advisory Service recommend that local authorities should be required to thoroughly test all reasonable options before requiring other authorities to accommodate some of their need.
Thurrock Council at this stage does not consider that all reasonable options to accommodate Brentwood's dwelling requirement within Brentwood have been fully examined by the Council and tested in accordance with government policy and guidance. Therefore the approach to preparation of the local plan is unsound.
Thurrock Council requests that more detail is provided as to how such Green Belt release is to be undertaken and how alternative locations have been considered before a further draft Local Plan consultation. It is considered the role and development of the A12 corridor and in particular Brentwood/Shenfield Broad Area should be thoroughly investigated and its potential role to accommodate further growth over the period of the local plan and beyond. The implications of the potential to accommodate more growth and associated infrastructure requirements need to be considered with some weight as a way of meeting the housing requirement currently identified in the Brentwood Local Plan Growth Options and supporting evidence.
Thurrock Council has a fundamental objection to a strategic Green Belt release at Dunton Hill Garden Village or at West Horndon due to the impact on the Green Belt. In addition limited new or updated evidence has been made available to demonstrate the deliverability and viability of such schemes.
Thurrock Council has also highlighted various aspects of concern with the evidence base in connection with the preparation of the draft local Plan.
Thurrock Council wished to clarify that its objections to the earlier consultations to the Brentwood Local Plan and Dunton Garden Suburb stage still stand. Due to the issues highlighted in this response and to the earlier documents there are several fundamental concerns to the strategy approach and detail development proposals it is considered that Brentwood Council needs to carefully consider how it proceeds with the preparation of the Local Plan and the timetable for its production.
Thurrock Council request to be kept informed of the preparation and publication of the Brentwood Local Plan and technical evidence base as part of the Duty to cooperate process.

I was impressed with the information at the open consultation event at Tipps Cross last night. All very helpful and clear
I agree with the sites allocated and they make sense to me. In particular I think Basildon will benefit a great deal. There is so much going for this particular development in that area with shops, buses, trains etc.

1. The Parish Council considers that the proposed document and its supporting material, the Site Allocation and Pattern Maps, are well-constructed and contain well thought through and comprehensive policies that the Parish Council supports overall.
The Parish Council would like to congratulate the Borough Planning team working on this project for their hard work in producing this Draft Document for consultation.

2. A number of detailed comments, observations and requests are made as follows:
Recommendations for improvement. (NB. Reference in this paper to the "LDP" means the Brentwood Draft Local Plan (2013 - 2033):

2.1 Whilst mapping of the Parish Council boundaries is in the Pattern book on Page 18 it isn't referenced anywhere in the LDP, but knowledge of the Parish Council boundaries would help better inform the reader and make some of the statements easier to understand. For example paragraph 9.58 on Page 142 is being interpreted by many as meaning the whole of the area of the Parishes listed (they are called settlements in the document) are urban when it is the established residential areas that are being referred to as an urban classification and excluded from the Green Belt. Clear understanding is not helped by the fact that the proposals map (Fig 9.2) isn't referenced in 9.58 and you have to read the glossary to understand what a proposal map is. Parish Councils are referred to on page 16 of the LDP para 2.40, so perhaps a reference to the mapping of the Parish Council areas could be included here?

2.2 Errors observed on Page 42 of the LDP. Hook End and Wyatts Green are not separate villages as implied in the "Cat 4 smaller villages" table but are wards of Blackmore Parish Council and are within the Blackmore Parish Council area. Stondon Massey and Navestock (which are separate parished areas) are missing altogether.

2.3 Page 93 of the LDP. The Willows, Place Farm Lane is within the boundary of Doddinghurst Parish Council and therefore the address should be Doddinghurst and not Kelvedon Hatch. This error is also repeated in the pattern book on page 30.

2.4 In comparison with historic housing growth in the Borough there are a very large number of dwellings (928) that are to be provided under the "windfall" allowance. We are concerned that, when the 255 non allocated housing and employment sites are studied this could lead to a planning blight in those area listed because all housing conveyance processes now ask for details of potential development in the area. The Parish Council therefore recommend that the non allocated site list is refined in the very near future, using the proposed LDP policies, to shortlist sites to meet the majority of "windfall" needs, rather than let a potential 10 year planning bun-fight start once the plan is adopted. At the moment people are being lulled into a false sense of security because the site allocation maps document omit potentially 100 or so sites where development will ultimately take place of 9 or more houses between now and 2033 to meet the proposed new housing targets.

2.4 In comparison with historic housing growth in the Borough there are a very large number of dwellings (928) that are to be provided under the "windfall" allowance. We are concerned that, when the 255 non allocated housing and employment sites are studied this could lead to a planning blight in those area listed because all housing conveyance processes now ask for details of potential development in the area. The Parish Council therefore recommend that the non allocated site list is refined in the very near future, using the proposed LDP policies, to shortlist sites to meet the majority of "windfall" needs, rather than let a potential 10 year planning bun-fight start once the plan is adopted. At the moment people are being lulled into a false sense of security because the site allocation maps document omit potentially 100 or so sites where development will ultimately take place of 9 or more houses between now and 2033 to meet the proposed new housing targets.

2.5 LDP Policy 9.9 clause l. (NB has a stray "m" at the beginning). The Parish Council support the preservation of Bungalows but this particular clause relates only to the redevelopment of dwellings in the Green Belt. LDP Para 7.65 reflects on the fact that the population is aging but the need is not simply for specialist housing for the elderly. LDP Para 2.34 explains that there is a growth in numbers of the elderly in the Borough and para 9.76 expressly mentions giving older people the opportunity to downsize. This is no less so than in the villages, where there is a need for more bungalows for conventional retail purchase - not affordable or sheltered homes, to allow for the "churn" of people in the villages - for the elderly to "downsize" and families to "upsize" to the properties that now too large, or with gardens and stairs that are no longer an asset but a liability, for the aged. With the emphasis on affordable housing everywhere in the LDP the need for new bungalows has been somewhat squeezed out and there is no clear pathway in the policy document to facilitate this key provision - but with all the Green Belt safeguards that the Borough Council have rightly included. Can 9.76 perhaps reference approved Neighbourhood Plans as evidence of such requirement as well as the Council's Strategic Housing Market Assessment and local housing strategy?

2.6 LDP Policy 7.5 g (i). The Parish Council understands the drive for affordable housing but is nevertheless concerned about the possibility of unintended consequences of this policy clause which has the laudable intent of making new homes truly affordable in Brentwood, but, the Parish Council suspects that this approach could backfire badly in one of two ways, by either
(i) Deterring development entirely, or
(ii) By resulting in homes built to every minimum standard in the book in a race to the bottom in design with microscopic footprints and amenity space. In short, homes that are affordable but quite undesirable.

2.7 Green Belt and its development by stealth.
(i) The "Agricultural Business". One of the loopholes exploited by land speculators in the past and present (and we can point to several examples), is for an individual/ company to purchase a large green belt field, or either have (or purchase) an area of land behind their property, and then to set up a small scale rural business such as, e.g.: a stable; an egg farm; a mushroom farm etc. A typical approach will be where, sooner or later, an application will be lodged for some form of building annex where a person can live in order to tend "The Farm" and then in due course for this to be followed by an application for a full scale residential development. Once the residence is completed, the business soon seems to become unviable and ceases to trade, and the dwelling is sold for residential purposes.
(ii) As well as this approach we see the more clandestine method adopted in quiet backwaters where large screens or fences are put up to camouflage the field behind which small dwellings are constructed and then after 10 years a certificate of lawfulness is requested to make the development legal.
The question is, is there anything that can be done in the LDP to close these loopholes that are regularly exploited?

3. Consultation response approval.
The contents of this response to the Consultation detailed above has been agreed by the Parish Council have been as discussed at a meeting to review the LDP on the 7th January 2016.

See attached.

I object to this plan on the grounds that -

The infrastructure to support this plan does not appear to be adequate.

Health care and schools will be overwhelmed.

Traffic will be gridlocked.

Quality of life in Brentwood will plummet due to overcrowding and inadequate services. Unrest could occur and our police services would be unable to deal with it due to undermanning.

A future living under this plan is alarming.

I have read fully the new draft plan, and can find no reason to object to any of it.

I support this plan.

Further to the above and the recent 'drop in' event at Tipps Cross Remberance Hall which was very informative. I write in support of the LPD proposals,
It was noted that there are no intentions to vary green belt boundaries, this is reassuring.
It is also noted that there may be a time in certain areas of the parish that it will be necessary for some development to be carried out and that it should not affect the surrounding areas.
Thank you for everything that has been done on our behalf, by the Borough.

I would support the plan.
Thank you