And must not impact already stretched on-street parking

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?

See attached regarding land at Penny Pots, Ongar Road, Stondon Massey

See attachments

See attached

I wish to respond to the Draft Plan on the proposed development at West Horndon as follows:

1. Size of development

The Draft Option shows the preferred option for Borough Council of a major new development of 1500 dwellings added to a small village community which is currently made up of 750 dwellings. The proposed development would triple the size of the village and change its character. The village would be asked to accept 43% of the development of the borough.

West Horndon village is mentioned in the 1086 Doomsday Book. The scale of the development proposed would swamp the existing village and would result in creating a new settlement that threatens to make the the current commercial and community centre of the village redundant or even polarise the village by creating a competing commercial area to the existing areas. The plans do not enhance the village but are a bolt-on to the village.

The plan contains few details to support the allocation of a major development to a small village. For example a variety of alternative, modern methods of sustainable sewage treatment are suitable and environmentally beneficial which could be used in the less populated north of the borough, but these appear not to have been investigated. For example, near West Horndon, in St Mary's Lane is a brand new settlement of 10-12 houses with an independent waste water treatment which is commercially viable as all properties have been sold. This should be thoroughly investigated and replicated where possible in the areas discounted as alternative options 3 (semi dispersed growth) and 4 (dispersed growth) in section S1 Spatial Strategy.

National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, waste water and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education and flood risk, and its ability to meet forecast demands. This has not been done. For example the preferred options document makes reference to an evidence based and infrastructure, but is says that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming". It is essential that the borough council provide a plan that address the following issues: West Horndon is several degrees cooler than the surrounding town areas and heating is very important in the long winter months, the broadband is very slow, the primary school and doctors surgery are already at full capacity and there is a legal obligation for authorities to provide school places and healthcare to everyone who needs it. The area is marked as a flood risk. The lack of evidence is not acceptable and full studies would need to be carried out and consulted upon before any agreement to develop takes place.

We are being asked to comment on a major and very significant proposal, but only being presented with an unfinished outline of what is proposed. The benefits for the village are unstated and unknown. There is no proposal of how the scheme might seek to mitigate against any harmful impacts.

The Borough Council are attempting to run a full consultation exercise on a very draft proposal which needs further research and proper evidence. It would probably be open to judicial review if passed in its present form.

2. Consultation process
The government has said that, "too often power was exercised by people who were not directly affected by the decisions they were taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them".

I feel that this plan and the consultation process have been done with a top down process and not bottom up, it feels like the borough council are not listening to the community. I do agree that any dwellings should be developed on the green belt land identified on the plan as 037. There is no natural stopping boundary in this proposal and I believe in time would be extended to cover all the land up to the A127.

The national guidelines state that 'Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies'. The plan presented to residents is still in its infancy and has lots of gaps (flooding, transport infrastructure, health and educational services, amenities, public transport are still to be considered). Until this is carried out the proposal is neither robust nor comprehensive. The borough council need to carry out a study of West Horndon and the other sites mentioned above in order to accurately ascertain whether its plans are affordable. It is easy to build houses, it is another thing to enhance a community. The developers will build the houses and walk away leaving remaining problems and challenges on the doorstep of the Borough Council and West Horndon residents to solve and pay for.


3. Metropolitan Green Belt
The National Planning Policy Framework states that the government attaches great importance to Green Belts and to build on them is in appropriate and harmful. The large plot of 037 is green belt and has no boundary and creep will eventually result in it being built on to the A127 boundary.

If building has to take place in West Horndon then is should be done on the brown belt areas. Suitable brown belt areas are the West Horndon Industrial Estate. There are also brown belt areas at Hutton Industrial, Waits Way industrial Estate and the site formerly housing Elliott's night club. Timmerman's nursery on the 127 was formerly green belt land and if it were to be purchased would be a site suitable for dwellings. Ingatestone have a garden centre which could be developed into residential dwellings. As stated above, there is a site of 10-12 newly built houses which have sold successfully, that have an independent sewage system. This could be replicated across the north of the borough. I would prefer not to see one dwelling built on green belt. However IF green belt land in West Horndon has be built upon then perhaps extending the town along Station Road, and extending the park behind the dwellings and opening an entrance onto Station Road to provide a boundary might be an option. This would extend the lighting along Station Road and along with newly developed suitably lit pathways in the park would provide safe areas for jogging and walking for all age groups, which at the moment is missing from the village. This could provide an exceptional benefit to all members of the community.

4. Cohesion with local amenities
The last census shows that West Horndon contains 750 dwellings, with some 1900 people. The proposal is for an additional 1500 dwellings of yet undetermined density. This is a major proposal which will have a significant impact on the current residents and the proposed new residents. For example the village a limited range of shops (two corner shops, two fireplace shops, several hairdressers and beauty treatment shops, one or two small cafes. The corner shops shut at 8pm and the other shops are all closed by 5pm. The ATM charges to withdraw money. The majority of events running in the village hall run during the day. The village does not have a secondary school and has limited and unreliable bus runs to the schools. The bus service is limited and also unreliable (with perhaps two busses a day to Brentwood and return.) The morning commute to Fenchurch Street is already at full capacity and Network Rail have no plans to upgrade the station, the ancient cement foot bridge, the very dangerous pedestrian entrance (it has no footpath, frequently floods, and near constant low hanging greenery on the way in which includes rosebushes). Availability of doctors is over stretched, there is a three day wait and the surgery does not open before 9am or after 5pm and never on a Saturday, and it closes for 2 hours at lunch! The primary school is at full capacity and there is little for kids to do after school. Unlike the rail link between Shenfield and Ingatestone, the rail at West Horndon only leads out of the borough, thus a more reliable and affordable bus link to Brentwood is essential if the borough wishes to attempt to contain money within the borough. In particular if jobs are to be created within West Horndon it would be good if the council could support residents with in the borough to get to West Horndon and have access to these jobs. If the industrial estate located at West Horndon is to be moved to the M25 site then a reliable and affordable link between the West Horndon train station and the new industrial estate is essential. Shenfield will soon receive Cross rail and despite being advertised as 'end of the crossrail line' is in fact one stop to Liverpool Street and therefore makes access to Heathrow extremely quick indeed! Travel between West Horndon, Billericay and Shenfield is through busy, winding country lanes.

Creating additional dwelling would 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; the doctors surgery too would need more resources to allow it to open for longer hours and Saturdays.

It would be good if a much more thought could be given to the proposed retail development on the brownfield site so that it enhances rather than competes or takes away from the village centre and heart.

5. Impact on the countryside and character of the village
The village is a small low density settlement and is surrounded all by open countryside. Plot 037 has been farmed for years for wheat, oil seed rape, and peas. Construction of 1,000 dwellings that green belt farmed land will reduce food available to the UK, less land for wildlife and loss of ancient hedgerows and borders. It will also destroy the open setting and rural character of the village.

6. Impact on the residents
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 did not indicate what is proposed. We would like low density development please. The proposed location of new shops and 'new village hall' is close to existing dwellings and noise of large lorries backing up will travel. Timings of deliveries will need to be limited and agreed. I disagree with a new village hall as proposed by the developers, we really don't need two and it will give the village two centres, thus polarising it - so much for integrating old and new!

The volume of traffic will increase through the village including additional trucks supply the shops and take away the waste. Back gardens currently not over looked will be intruded and the village will lose its rural character, so any development against existing really should be low level. Any development needs to be agreed by the residents and again, I say not one house should be built on green belt land.

7. Impact on the road and junctions in the borough
The major roads of 127 and 128 are already unable to cope with the morning and evening flows of traffic. To create an additional lane and make the dual carriage ways three lanes (effectively making them motorways) would be extremely costly and involve removing several homes. The Station Road 128 Junction would require redevelopment. The bridge over the railway station is an s bend and narrow. it would need to be widened and become a modern 'carbuncle' on the side of the village.

The junction at the station, the current industrial estate is a dangerous blind spot. Traffic coming over the bridge cannot see traffic exiting the station nor from the estate. Traffic from the station exit is unable to see traffic coming over the bridge. Pedestrian do not have a crossing across station road and need to run the width of two lanes and two bus stops - a very wide stretch of road between the proposed site and the station. If dwelling are built on the industrial estate the crossing to the railway station and bus station (for children returning from secondary school) will be extremely dangerous. The proposed small roundabout proposed by the developers would not work. It appears to be a lazy and cheap solution and needs proper investigation. The pedestrian entrance to the station is shared with the vehicles. There is no footpath.

Existing junctions from 127 to the village are inadequate and vehicles need to slow down to 20mph and lower to safely go onto these roads, at the annoyance and indeed horror of other road users which, when able, can travel at 60mph.

There are no footpaths to the west of the west of the village along St Mary's Lane which lead to winding narrow roads.

8. Flood risk
The proposed plot of 037 is the flood plain for Thorndon Park. It does indeed flood and has done badly 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. The Environment Agency web site shows West Horndon and Bulphan as being at risk of flooding. It is the low lying area with the hills of Brentwood to its north. Flood alleviation in the area will have a knock on affect to land south of West Horndon.

9. loss of current employment
The brownfield site proposed to be used is almost 17 hectares of employment land. It will be essential that existing businesses can be relocated to near by sites efficiently, cheaply and with benefit to the businesses so that they are not lost to other boroughs in the area. We need to ensure that we local employment is encouraged.


I really do care for the village I have chosen to live in and welcome good well-integrated, robustly investigated and sustainable development. In the years ahead I will not wish to explain to my family why developers were able to walk away with huge profits yet able to leave the village with long-term, expensive challenges that the community and borough council have to solve and pay for.

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]