no

I support the proposed draft plan that I have examined in detail, including having questions answered at the Tipps Cross drop in event. I believe that the solutions proposed in the plan deal with the difficult requirements of our complex geographicaal area very well, making the best use of existing infrastructure available at the present time with reasonable options for continued expansion as the requirements of the plan develop. This is a well presented plan.

Does this not change drastically now that the Thames crossing access routes are going through the southern areas.

Dear Sir / Madam
I am writing to formally register my objection to the 'Brentwood Draft Local Plan' proposal, due to the negative impact I believe it will have on the surrounding communities. I, as I am sure many residents, have lots of questions with regards to this consultation. I have summarised my concerns and questions here with further explanations and questions explained in detail below.
Summary of questions:

1. Why is greenbelt land now being considered for declassification in and around the Brentwood / Basildon area?
1.1 The proposed land can often be seen throughout the year growing many varieties Vegetables, food and hay for livestock. Is this land no longer needed for agriculture?

2. What, if any, consideration has been given to the wildlife that will be impacted with such a large scale development on greenbelt land?
2.1 Has the Wildlife Trust, RSPB, Butterfly and Rare species groups been properly consulted on the wildlife in the proposed area?
2.1a Will their views, comments and professional advice be properly listened to and addressed?
2.2 What thoughts and considerations have been made to ensure that our wildlife continues to thrive?
2.3 Simply including a green space 'here and there' isn't sufficient as unlike humans wildlife knows no boundaries and by segregating them to a specific area will just encourage inbreeding, predation and further decline as they have nowhere else to go.
2.4 Will there be any considerations to wildlife corridors between open spaces allowing species to breed, migrate and exist safely and naturally?

3. Have all brownfield sites been considered and exhausted before planning on building on greenbelt land?
3.1 Why is it that greenbelt land appears to be more appealing than brownfield sites for developments?


4. Approx 2500 for Dunton Hills Garden Village! Does this truly reflect Brentwood towns growth expectations for the indigenous Brentwood people over the next few years?
4.1 Will these new homes be designated solely for the people of Brentwood? If not why not and please explain how this will be divided up.
4.2 Will the infrastructure as it stands cope with an increase in the new population
4.3 What plans are being proposed to cope with a minimum of 5,000 new people to the Dunton Hills Village area?
4.4 What plans are being proposed to cope with a minimum of 5,000 new people to the Dunton Hills Village
4.5 Schools, Hospitals, Emergency services are all under strain as it is. Are there plans to rectify this before the proposal of new buildings goes ahead?
4.6 Will there be any revisions to the proposal to consider allocations, both land and infrastructure for the likes of schools, hospitals and emergency services?
4.7 Can Brentwood cope with the additional waste, landfill and sewage that will be created?
4.8 What measures are going to be put in place and enforced to ensure a good level of air quality? Surrounding areas are already fairly high!
4.8 Who will foot the bill for all of the above?

5. With the ever increasing worry and risk of flooding, what assurances can the residents of Brentwood and the new residents of the Dunton Hills Garden Village that they won't be affected by any increases in flooding?
5.1 We have already seen that parts of the A127, Lower Dunton Road and some minor roads are prone to flooding due to either surface water or road drainage systems backing up. Will these be addressed especially since the new development will be partly built on flood plains?

6. West Basildon's and South West Brentwood's greenbelt land is land that we must save and preserve. Not just for our wildlife, health and wellbeing but with the proposed Lower Thames Crossing; the London sprawl and housing development will bring the end of Essex as a community and Brentwood and Basildon as towns.

Detail:
As mentioned at the start of my letter I am writing to formally register my objection to the 'Brentwood Draft Local Plan', due to the negative impact I believe it will have on the surrounding greenbelt areas, wildlife and communities. In fact this development will have far greater reaching impacts for anyone living, traveling or passing through South Essex. We should be proud of the green belt areas that surround our area and look to protect them for many years and generations to come. These areas should be the last place considered for building new properties especially when there are so many brown field sites yet to be improved and are suitable for housing development. It's madness that there is more red tape for developing brown field sites than on green belt land!
Simply declassifying green belt land (because it is easier than utilising brown field sites) without specialist investigation in to the species that use this as their habitat and home is unacceptable. There have been many sightings and recordings of wildlife in the area which include the following some of which are protected species and can be found in and around the Dunton Essex Wildlife Trust nature reserve. (Not an exhaustive list by any means):
- The following species are all found in the area and they are also in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan:- Water voles (legally protected and endangered) , Grizzled Skipper butterfly (legally protected and endangered) , Great Crested Newts (protected) , Slow Worm, Grass Snake, Cuckoo, Song Thrush, House Sparrow, Tree Sparrow, Turtle Dove, Wood Warbler. The following are also found in the area and will disappear should the proposal get passed:- Bats (protected), Badgers (protected), Adders (protected) , Kingfishers, Bullfinches, Buzzards, Sparrow Hawks, Owls, (Tawny, Barn and Short Eared Owl), Foxes, Rabbit, Deer. Although Dormice (legally protected and endangered) have not yet been found in the area because surveys have not been conducted, they have been found in neighbouring village of Stock within Billericay, not 10 minutes from the proposed site so there is an extremely high possibility that they are also in the area. Dormice are also a protected and endangered species.
- There are also many trees, plants and vegetation that would be lost that provide as homes and food for all of the above
- Roadside verges seem to be shrinking and are even being cleared which was once enforced by Basildon Council to help preserve and encourage wildlife to flourish. This can clearly be seen on the verges and central reservation of the A127 between Basildon and Dunton Junctions.

We are fortunate to have the Dunton Essex Wildlife Trust nature reserve where we can escape from the hustle and bustle of normal daily commuter life. There are very few places in Basildon where you can get to see beautiful countryside that hasn't been developed or see fields that haven't been concreated over. The views across to London from the top of Dunton reserve are amazing and will be lost forever should this development go ahead. These views have recently seen a Solar farm built directly opposite this reserve and now we are hearing of a proposed wind farm. More worryingly is that these views that we enjoy are a home, a habitat that links together to keep the great British wildlife flourishing. Nature doesn't understand boundaries and needs natural pathways, links and open spaces from one site to another to enable species (animals, insects and vegetation) to exist.

With the development of Dry Street now going ahead we will be putting a massive obstacle between two reserves (Langdon Hills Country Park & Dunton Essex Wildlife Trust nature reserve) which will unquestionably have a massive effect on these species. Now we are planning on doing the same between Dunton Essex Wildlife Trust nature reserve and Thorndon Country Park!

With an existing infrastructure that is already showing signs of excessive strain how is Basildon supposed to cope?
Basildon Hospital is already under pressure and it took over 4 hours for me to be seen in A&E when I had stiches in my leg due to a recent accident. Local Doctor Surgeries are also stretched and it can take me weeks to get an appointment with my doctor and inevitably I get to see a locum and not my allocated doctor. How will the local health services be improved to accommodate such a huge influx of people? What provisions for both land and infrastructure has been considered for Basildon hospital especially with the development of Dry Street?
The main transport routes of the A12, A127 and A13 are already stressed to breaking point . The sheer volume of traffic can bring both roads to a standstill and is a frequent occurrence during rush hour times, and that is before adding in the effects of any incidents or accidents. Even travelling down the A127 during the day is restricted rendering the speed cameras pretty much ineffective these days. When these main routes are blocked traffic spills into neighbouring side roads creating yet more traffic and pollution for our area. What plans have been taken to make the necessary improvements to these roads alleviating the already high volume of traffic and to cater for the obvious traffic that new properties will create? And that is not only new properties in the Brentwood area but also development sites stretching from Southend to London along the A127 and Colchester to London along the A12 as anyone who uses these two main routes will be affected.

The local Primary Schools in Langdon Hills are regularly oversubscribed meaning children have to pass their local school to go to another. Some families are even divided forcing siblings to attend different schools due to being oversubscribed. With the proposal of "affordable housing" you must expect many families with children to move in so why isn't there more schools being planned within the proposal. Where will the new Brentwood residents be expected to take their children to school?

** Wouldn't you agree that we have the right to protect our green belt land. Exhaust our brownfield sites and say enough is enough, we are full? Surely more properties for Brentwood brings us very close to its limits of being full! **

The local services can't handle the existing numbers of residents , so to propose to add many thousands more, without providing any level of detail within the proposal as to how they would be catered for is not the way a council with a responsible planning policy should behave. There needs to be more detail and information on infrastructure and services that will be planned. Tell us how much extra capacity you plan for the local transport links. As it stands there can only be negative impacts on our local infrastructure, natural beauty spots and way of life if this proposal were to proceed. Local services such as schools and healthcare will suffer, the extra congestion will make travel miserable, employment opportunities may be spread even more thinly, and the environmental effects of the construction and extra population could be disastrous. Is Brentwood & Basildon to become the new London? A place where you can't enjoy the country, a place where you can't drive your car and a place that is stupidly overcrowded!
Please register my vehement objection to this proposal , and ensure that this is taken into account.
Yours Sincerely
Marc Godfree

You still fail to show a true picture of Herongate being directly affected by the A127 because of its very close proximity, therefore making it part of the A127 corridor. The A127 has excessive congestion on the road, and the C2C line has transformed from a good service to its original title of the Misery Line in a matter of months. it does not have the capacity for any additional customers at West Horndon, which is the only station within Brentwood Borough on the C2C line. National Rail had already confirmed last year that they had no intention of adding an extra station in any new development, so all residents of developments around the Dunton area would be solely reliant on their cars on the heavily congested A127. If the proposed Option C Route 4 gets the go ahead then the development would also be underneath a four to six lane carriageway in one direction, and an eight to ten lane carriageway in the other direction, completely cutting the development off from any Brentwood services. This means that Brentwood residents would be completely reliant on their Basildon neighbour's facilities, which are already stretched beyond capacity. You propose development around the A127 because you claim the Brentwood Urban area and North of the Borough has congestion, a lack of primary schools, GP facilities, and a higher landscape value. In actual fact, the A127 and South of the Borough suffers severely from congestion, not only on the A127 and local roads around West Horndon, but also on the Herongate and Ingrave area, that has been fighting a Twenty's Plenty campaign to improve safety on the heavily congested roads. There are no more services in the South of the Borough than the North, and a new development won't deliver new GPs and schools until well into any development, putting a strain on surrounding areas, particularly Basildon, as the natural boundaries of the A127 and A128 will prevent any residents from the Dunton area even getting to West Horndon, let alone the rest of the borough. The claim that there is a higher landscape value elsewhere is ludicrous, as quantity doesn't equate to quality. The sheer lack of Green Belt and green spaces around the A127 corridor increases the value to the residents spiritual and physical well being

Although I strongly believe that we DO NOT need any more houses built (there are literally THOUSANDS of empty properties throughout the country), if they "have" to be built anywhere, I strongly believe that they should be built on top of existing urban areas - build on top of schools, shops etc, anywhere that ISN'T green belt/forests/fields etc
- What about building on the West Horndon abatoir land instead???

At the age of 20 I don't want to live in the London Borough of South Essex, which is what will happen if this tiny, valuable for so many reasons, piece of Green Belt is buried under concrete, air and noise pollution, as it is one of the few pieces fulfilling its purpose of preventing urban sprawl.

These are some of the objections I uphold on the proposed development around Dunton. It's very nature as Green Belt in an area South of the A127 which has very limited Green Belt, makes it value as such much higher than that in areas of lots of Green Belt, such as the more Northern parts of the Borough. Any development around the Dunton area foisters Brentwood's problems onto the people of Basildon, as the development would be isolated from the rest of the Borough by the major barriers of the A127 and the A128, and possibly also a new Lower Thames Crossing. Green Belt doesn't have a value because of it's leafy green views, it has a value based on its benefit to the health and mental wellbeing of surrounding areas, and its ability to stop the spread of urban sprawl. In an area already very over developed, such as the south of the A127 around Basildon towards Southend, and Upminster towards London, the small patch of Green Belt may be a drop in the ocean of the large amount of Brentwood's Green Belt (almost twice that of Basildon), but its rarity in that particular location stops everything south of the A127 becoming the London Borough of South Essex.
The development is not only bad for the existing surrounding population, but the new residents would suffer as they wouldn't have access to amenities. It would be in breach of rules on placing traveller sites within areas of easy access to medical and educational facilities. The wildlife of the area would be destroyed, as it is in the middle of the corridor between the Essex Wildlife Trust and Thorndon Park. That much concrete being built would increase the risk of flooding in an area already prone to surface water flooding. The increased pollution levels in the area from the cars from 2,500 homes in such a confined area, as well as the number of vehicles required during any building process, would be bad for the health (asthma, COPD, etc) of existing and new tenants, as well as any wildlife.
Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives
Representation
SO7 - You claim you want to 'Optimise the social and economic benefits that arise from Crossrail for the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors to the Borough', yet you dump most of housing needs that would benefit from Crossrail south of the A127, where there are numerous problems with the C2C line, the houses would not be near a station anyway, as the A128 would create a barrier which requires residents to drive and park at either Laindon or West Horndon. A quick check on the C2C twitter and Facebook pages would tell you how many problems they have. The 2,500 houses planned for Dunton, and the 500 houses planned for West Horndon would be cut off from good transport needs, with or without the proposed Lower Thames Crossing Option C Route 4 being built, which will only add to their isolation if it went ahead.
SO8 - You claim will 'Promote and support a prosperous rural economy' yet you propose to build half of your housing allocation on Green Belt agricultural land, South of the A127.
SO9 - You claim you will 'Safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development and enhance its beneficial use', yet you propose a massive inappropriate development of the very limited supply of Green Belt South of the A127. It has greater value as there is less of it. The National Planning and Policy Framework states that that Green Belt is there to check unrestricted sprawl, and to prevent neighbouring towns from merging. The limited supply of Green Belt land in the area between Brentwood and Basildon South of the A127 is very limited, and both councils propose building up to the boundaries, thereby creating unrestricted sprawl, as well as merging neighbouring towns. South of the A127 there will be virtually no Green Belt separating the London Borough of Havering all the way to Southend. The Green Belt is also supposed to be there to assist in in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns, yet you propose to build on the only bit of countryside South of the A127, when there is plenty across the rest of the borough. On a Supply and Demand basis, the Green Belt has a far higher value South of the A127 because of its rarity. Also, it preserves the character of Domesday Book villages like Dunton, West Horndon, Herongate and Ingrave, by preventing the development of the small amount of remaining Green Belt in that part of the Borough.

Chapter 5 - Spatial Strategy
Evolution of spatial strategy
Representation
You still fail to show a true picture of Herongate being directly affected by the A127 because of its very close proximity, therefore making it part of the A127 corridor. The A127 has excessive congestion on the road, and the C2C line has transformed from a good service to its original title of the Misery Line in a matter of months. it does not have the capacity for any additional customers at West Horndon, which is the only station within Brentwood Borough on the C2C line. National Rail had already confirmed last year that they had no intention of adding an extra station in any new development, so all residents of developments around the Dunton area would be solely reliant on their cars on the heavily congested A127. If the proposed Option C Route 4 gets the go ahead then the development would also be underneath a four to six lane carriageway in one direction, and an eight to ten lane carriageway in the other direction, completely cutting the development off from any Brentwood services. This means that Brentwood residents would be completely reliant on their Basildon neighbour's facilities, which are already stretched beyond capacity. You propose development around the A127 because you claim the Brentwood Urban area and North of the Borough has congestion, a lack of primary schools, GP facilities, and a higher landscape value. In actual fact, the A127 and South of the Borough suffers severely from congestion, not only on the A127 and local roads around West Horndon, but also on the Herongate and Ingrave area, that has been fighting a Twenty's Plenty campaign to improve safety on the heavily congested roads. There are no more services in the South of the Borough than the North, and a new development won't deliver new GPs and schools until well into any development, putting a strain on surrounding areas, particularly Basildon, as the natural boundaries of the A127 and A128 will prevent any residents from the Dunton area even getting to West Horndon, let alone the rest of the borough. The claim that there is a higher landscape value elsewhere is ludicrous, as quantity doesn't equate to quality. The sheer lack of Green Belt and green spaces around the A127 corridor increases the value to the residents spiritual and physical well being

Draft Plan Spatial Strategy
Representation
You still fail to show a true picture of Herongate being directly affected by the A127 because of its very close proximity, therefore making it part of the A127 corridor. The A127 has excessive congestion on the road, and the C2C line has transformed from a good service to its original title of the Misery Line in a matter of months. it does not have the capacity for any additional customers at West Horndon, which is the only station within Brentwood Borough on the C2C line. National Rail had already confirmed last year that they had no intention of adding an extra station in any new development, so all residents of developments around the Dunton area would be solely reliant on their cars on the heavily congested A127. If the proposed Option C Route 4 gets the go ahead then the development would also be underneath a four to six lane carriageway in one direction, and an eight to ten lane carriageway in the other direction, completely cutting the development off from any Brentwood services. This means that Brentwood residents would be completely reliant on their Basildon neighbour's facilities, which are already stretched beyond capacity. You propose development around the A127 because you claim the Brentwood Urban area and North of the Borough has congestion, a lack of primary schools, GP facilities, and a higher landscape value. In actual fact, the A127 and South of the Borough suffers severely from congestion, not only on the A127 and local roads around West Horndon, but also on the Herongate and Ingrave area, that has been fighting a Twenty's Plenty campaign to improve safety on the heavily congested roads. There are no more services in the South of the Borough than the North, and a new development won't deliver new GPs and schools until well into any development, putting a strain on surrounding areas, particularly Basildon, as the natural boundaries of the A127 and A128 will prevent any residents from the Dunton area even getting to West Horndon, let alone the rest of the borough. The claim that there is a higher landscape value elsewhere is ludicrous, as quantity doesn't equate to quality. The sheer lack of Green Belt and green spaces around the A127 corridor increases the value to the residents spiritual and physical well being

Housing
Representation
Re: Dunton area. This is an area of Green Belt, and there is not enough evidence put forward to show why over 1/3 of the Borough's allowance should be dumped where it goes against the rules of Green Belt, preventing Urban Sprawl, etc. Developing there, and the 500 homes planned for West Horndon, together with the unspecified number of traveller sites, etc, means that there will be virtually no Green Belt left between the London Borough of Havering and Southend. The case has not been shown that adequate facilities would be put in place for any development, prior to people living there, so they would rely heavily on the neighbouring borough of Basildon. This means that there is no more supply of facilities than anywhere else across the borough, and it is probably easier to add one extra GP to an existing surgery, etc, than to build a new surgery before anyone lives in a location. The natural barriers of the A127 and A128 means that residents would be denied medical and school facilities until a long time after they had moved in, if they are ever provided in sufficient numbers. There is no guarantee the age or health of residents, and the site does not even have any existing public transport to take residents to facilities further afield.

5.10 Strategic Green Belt
As stated previously. Use of this area of Green Belt around Dunton is in breach of the NPPF rules on Green Belt. By building on it Brentwood will be encouraging urban sprawl and inappropriate development, as the Green Belt South of the A127 is in very short supply, therefore of higher value than the abundant Green Belt in other areas of the Borough. Building on it will mean that there is developments almost entirely from the London Borough of Havering to Southend, which is in direct contravention of Green Belt policy.

Green field Green Belt
If these areas of Greenfield are within the Green Belt south of the A127 then they will exacerbate the breach of Green Belt rules, by increasing the urban sprawl from the London Borough of Havering to Southend.

Job Growth and Employment land
5.57 Development at Dunton Hills Garden Village, and around West Horndon, will not be able to provide for new employment land, any more than housing, at building there is in strict contravention of the NPPF for Green Belt, as it would create urban sprawl spreading from the London Borough of Havering to Southend. The so called strategic highway network is the heavily congested A127, and poor C2C service, which hasn't had the investment like the A12 and Crossrail have had, so transport infrastructure for employment is better North of the Borough.

Sustainable development
The NPPF for Green Belt shows that the proposed development of 2500 properties, plus employment and traveller sites on Green Belt at Dunton is not sustainable, as a loss of the very limited areas of Green Belt South of the A127 virtually links the areas of the London Borough of Havering through to Southend, so the LDP doesn't prevent neighbouring towns merging with one another. Green Belt is not decided on because of its high landscape value, or even if it is all accessible to the public, but because of the limited supply in this area.

Managing Development Growth
It is disingenuous to say 'some' Green Belt land will be used, when you are proposing to build on virtually all the Green Belt in the Dunton area. Losing it will result in the merging of more than one town, almost entirely from the London Borough of Havering to Southend. Breaching NPPF Green Belt guidlines, without sufficient benefit, as the Dunton community will be isolated from the rest of Brentwood by the major road boundaries, and lack of connective public transport systems, together with the congested road and rail system in the area.

General Development Criteria
a. Developing Dunton will have a massive unacceptable effect on visual amenity, as well as the character appearance of the surrounding area;
b.The site is isolate from the Brentwood Borough, in an area not currently serviced by public transport or roads, so it fails to provide satisfactory means of access to the site for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians and parking and servicing arrangements;
c.There is no public transport at the Dunton site, and no spare capacity on the C2C at either Laindon or West Horndon, and the C2C service doesn't link to the rest of the Brentwood Borough, so they would be isolated. The A127 is already heavily congested, and hasn't benefitted from the massive investments of the Crossrail and A12, which would be better suited to the addition numbers of users. People trying to cross the busy A127 have frequently lost their lives, and the isolation of this development would force people into crossing the A127 and the A128 to get to the rest of the Brentwood Borough. Highways England have proposed a Lower Thames Crossing, which may come up through the middle of the proposed Dunton site, adding increased risk to health and safety from vehicles and pollution, and creating another physical barrier for the residents, as there is currently no road system in that area.
d.A development of 2500 homes, plus employment and travellers sites, will definitely have an unacceptable effect on health, because of the high levels of pollution created. The loss of GreenBelt is an unacceptable effect on the environment, particularly as the concrete, and increased vehicle use through the years of development and forever after, etc, will release pollutants to land, water or air (light, noise pollution, vibration, odour, smoke, ash, dust and grit);
e.As there is currently no access to this site, it will cause unacceptable effects to the surrounding areas of Basildon and West Horndon, and their already congested road system, through excessive noise, activity and vehicle movements; There will be a loss of the Green Belt views, and the wildlife that they would have previously contained;
f.It is doubtfull that it will take full account of opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in developments, as too much development is being planned in a small space;
g.The development shouldn't go ahead, as greater weight should be given to the existing assets conservation and enhancement;
h.As it is Green Belt, there is limited residential units to lose, but this doesn't make the development acceptable.
i.As any new development would be required to mitigate its impact on local services and community infrastructure, and there is currently no services and community infrastructure in the area, it would be essential that absolutely all of that was in place before anyone moved in, otherwise BBC are forcing new tenants, employers/ees, travellers, etc, into surviving in isolation, or using the services of nearby Basildon, which are already stretched beyond capacity.

7.1 Dunton Hills Garden Village
Representation
7.5 is wrong to state that DHGV will be linked with Brentwood and other Borough Villages, as it will be divided from them by at least two busy roads, the A127 and the A128. Also, there is no physical route directly onto the A127, and if the Lower Thames Crossing Route C4 goes ahead this will be even worse. As the only available access will be going across Basildon land, this takes residents away from the Brentwood area, and places the burden on all of Basildon services.
7.6 This claim is entirely false, as development of this site encourages urban sprawl, particularly when taken alongside the development proposed on the Basildon Draft Local Plan as well. This will remove virtually the only remaining Green Belt between the London Borough of Havering and Southend. Brentwood has twice the amount of Green Belt as Basildon, yet it is choosing to destroy the small remaining green space to the West of Basildon, which completely goes against Green Belt policy. The losses far outweigh any benefits of developing this piece of Green Belt land.
For 7.7 see 7.6 There can be no Green Belt boundaries created when the small patch of Green Belt in this area is all being proposed for development, by Brentwood and Basildon, and it will directly affect the urban sprawl, by making The London Borough of South Essex a distinct possibility for anyone living south of the A127.
7.8 It is the A12 that has the distinct possibility for growth, as that is where the improved A12 and Crossrail are, so that is where people want to live and work. The A127 has houses built up to its boundaries, not allowing for expansion, and the C2C line is worse than terrible, having regained its old title of the Misery Line. Nobody would choose gridlock on the roads or standing on a train as the ideal location to move their home or business to, particularly as infrastructure of local roads, doctors, schools, etc, would not be in place until well into any construction period, and residents would be cut off from existing Brentwood services by the busy A127 and A128, which have already proved lethal so far this year.
7.9 completely contradicts your points on 7.7, as any Duty of Cooperation to build over the entire area of Green Belt at Dunton would remove any boundary to urban sprawl, guaranteeing that there would be a London Borough of South Essex. A small corridor of Green Belt, west of the Mardyke tributary on the land, would not constitute enough Green Belt as being possible to retain the title, and it could well be buried under concrete if the Lower Thames Crossing C4 goes ahead.

Rep made against: Policy 7.10: Gypsy and Traveller Provision
Representation
Placing at least 20 sites in the 'strategic' location of Dunton is unfair on local residents in the surrounding area. This is as far away as it is possible to be from the rest of the Brentwood Borough, bordering as it does the Basildon Borough, which already has to place far in excess of any traveller pitches than anywhere else, not only in Essex but most of the country. The Basildon area has had to pay for the fiasco resulting in the removal of the illegal pitches at Dale Farm, and is now being told to not only provide Green Belt space for all of those illegal residents, but also account for any population growth that may occur from them, plus extra provision for all legal travellers. To dump Brentwood's allocation so close to the high numbers of travellers in this area sound too much like a ghetto situation is being created, which is not good for the travelling community or the neighbouring non-travelling community. The travelling community has to have easy access to adequate medical and educational needs. This will not be provided in an environment like Dunton, where it is isolated from the rest of the Brentwood borough by the busy A127 and A128. As proved recently when a traveller child died crossing the A127 in Basildon, it is unsafe for them to isolated from other amenities.

9.2 Wildlife and conservation
I object to any development at Dunton, as this will adversely affect the wildlife in this area, that is extremely close to the Essex Wildlife Trust site at Langdon Hills, and provides a wildlife corridor to the Thorndon Park, which would be lost if this development went ahead.
9.3 as above


9.8 If Development within the Green Belt will only be permitted if it maintains the Green Belt's openness and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or harm its visual amenities, then the development at Dunton should definitely not go ahead as this conflicts with the purposes of green belt by loss of some of the limited visual green space in the area south of the A127, and it is going to encourage urban sprawl by removing one of the main sections separating the London borough of Havering from Southend.

See attached.

These are some of the objections I uphold on the proposed development around Dunton. It's very nature as Green Belt in an area South of the A127 which has very limited Green Belt, makes it value as such much higher than that in areas of lots of Green Belt, such as the more Northern parts of the Borough. Any development around the Dunton area foisters Brentwood's problems onto the people of Basildon, as the development would be isolated from the rest of the Borough by the major barriers of the A127 and the A128, and possibly also a new Lower Thames Crossing. Green Belt doesn't have a value because of it's leafy green views, it has a value based on its benefit to the health and mental wellbeing of surrounding areas, and its ability to stop the spread of urban sprawl. In an area already very over developed, such as the south of the A127 around Basildon towards Southend, and Upminster towards London, the small patch of Green Belt may be a drop in the ocean of the large amount of Brentwood's Green Belt (almost twice that of Basildon), but its rarity in that particular location stops everything south of the A127 becoming the London Borough of South Essex.
The development is not only bad for the existing surrounding population, but the new residents would suffer as they wouldn't have access to amenities. It would be in breach of rules on placing traveller sites within areas of easy access to medical and educational facilities. The wildlife of the area would be destroyed, as it is in the middle of the corridor between the Essex Wildlife Trust and Thorndon Park. That much concrete being built would increase the risk of flooding in an area already prone to surface water flooding. The increased pollution levels in the area from the cars from 2,500 homes in such a confined area, as well as the number of vehicles required during any building process, would be bad for the health (asthma, COPD, etc) of existing and new tenants, as well as any wildlife.
Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives
Representation
SO7 - You claim you want to 'Optimise the social and economic benefits that arise from Crossrail for the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors to the Borough', yet you dump most of housing needs that would benefit from Crossrail south of the A127, where there are numerous problems with the C2C line, the houses would not be near a station anyway, as the A128 would create a barrier which requires residents to drive and park at either Laindon or West Horndon. A quick check on the C2C twitter and Facebook pages would tell you how many problems they have. The 2,500 houses planned for Dunton, and the 500 houses planned for West Horndon would be cut off from good transport needs, with or without the proposed Lower Thames Crossing Option C Route 4 being built, which will only add to their isolation if it went ahead.
SO8 - You claim will 'Promote and support a prosperous rural economy' yet you propose to build half of your housing allocation on Green Belt agricultural land, South of the A127.
SO9 - You claim you will 'Safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development and enhance its beneficial use', yet you propose a massive inappropriate development of the very limited supply of Green Belt South of the A127. It has greater value as there is less of it. The National Planning and Policy Framework states that that Green Belt is there to check unrestricted sprawl, and to prevent neighbouring towns from merging. The limited supply of Green Belt land in the area between Brentwood and Basildon South of the A127 is very limited, and both councils propose building up to the boundaries, thereby creating unrestricted sprawl, as well as merging neighbouring towns. South of the A127 there will be virtually no Green Belt separating the London Borough of Havering all the way to Southend. The Green Belt is also supposed to be there to assist in in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns, yet you propose to build on the only bit of countryside South of the A127, when there is plenty across the rest of the borough. On a Supply and Demand basis, the Green Belt has a far higher value South of the A127 because of its rarity. Also, it preserves the character of Domesday Book villages like Dunton, West Horndon, Herongate and Ingrave, by preventing the development of the small amount of remaining Green Belt in that part of the Borough.

Chapter 5 - Spatial Strategy
Evolution of spatial strategy
Representation
You still fail to show a true picture of Herongate being directly affected by the A127 because of its very close proximity, therefore making it part of the A127 corridor. The A127 has excessive congestion on the road, and the C2C line has transformed from a good service to its original title of the Misery Line in a matter of months. it does not have the capacity for any additional customers at West Horndon, which is the only station within Brentwood Borough on the C2C line. National Rail had already confirmed last year that they had no intention of adding an extra station in any new development, so all residents of developments around the Dunton area would be solely reliant on their cars on the heavily congested A127. If the proposed Option C Route 4 gets the go ahead then the development would also be underneath a four to six lane carriageway in one direction, and an eight to ten lane carriageway in the other direction, completely cutting the development off from any Brentwood services. This means that Brentwood residents would be completely reliant on their Basildon neighbour's facilities, which are already stretched beyond capacity. You propose development around the A127 because you claim the Brentwood Urban area and North of the Borough has congestion, a lack of primary schools, GP facilities, and a higher landscape value. In actual fact, the A127 and South of the Borough suffers severely from congestion, not only on the A127 and local roads around West Horndon, but also on the Herongate and Ingrave area, that has been fighting a Twenty's Plenty campaign to improve safety on the heavily congested roads. There are no more services in the South of the Borough than the North, and a new development won't deliver new GPs and schools until well into any development, putting a strain on surrounding areas, particularly Basildon, as the natural boundaries of the A127 and A128 will prevent any residents from the Dunton area even getting to West Horndon, let alone the rest of the borough. The claim that there is a higher landscape value elsewhere is ludicrous, as quantity doesn't equate to quality. The sheer lack of Green Belt and green spaces around the A127 corridor increases the value to the residents spiritual and physical well being

Draft Plan Spatial Strategy
Representation
You still fail to show a true picture of Herongate being directly affected by the A127 because of its very close proximity, therefore making it part of the A127 corridor. The A127 has excessive congestion on the road, and the C2C line has transformed from a good service to its original title of the Misery Line in a matter of months. it does not have the capacity for any additional customers at West Horndon, which is the only station within Brentwood Borough on the C2C line. National Rail had already confirmed last year that they had no intention of adding an extra station in any new development, so all residents of developments around the Dunton area would be solely reliant on their cars on the heavily congested A127. If the proposed Option C Route 4 gets the go ahead then the development would also be underneath a four to six lane carriageway in one direction, and an eight to ten lane carriageway in the other direction, completely cutting the development off from any Brentwood services. This means that Brentwood residents would be completely reliant on their Basildon neighbour's facilities, which are already stretched beyond capacity. You propose development around the A127 because you claim the Brentwood Urban area and North of the Borough has congestion, a lack of primary schools, GP facilities, and a higher landscape value. In actual fact, the A127 and South of the Borough suffers severely from congestion, not only on the A127 and local roads around West Horndon, but also on the Herongate and Ingrave area, that has been fighting a Twenty's Plenty campaign to improve safety on the heavily congested roads. There are no more services in the South of the Borough than the North, and a new development won't deliver new GPs and schools until well into any development, putting a strain on surrounding areas, particularly Basildon, as the natural boundaries of the A127 and A128 will prevent any residents from the Dunton area even getting to West Horndon, let alone the rest of the borough. The claim that there is a higher landscape value elsewhere is ludicrous, as quantity doesn't equate to quality. The sheer lack of Green Belt and green spaces around the A127 corridor increases the value to the residents spiritual and physical well being

Housing
Representation
Re: Dunton area. This is an area of Green Belt, and there is not enough evidence put forward to show why over 1/3 of the Borough's allowance should be dumped where it goes against the rules of Green Belt, preventing Urban Sprawl, etc. Developing there, and the 500 homes planned for West Horndon, together with the unspecified number of traveller sites, etc, means that there will be virtually no Green Belt left between the London Borough of Havering and Southend. The case has not been shown that adequate facilities would be put in place for any development, prior to people living there, so they would rely heavily on the neighbouring borough of Basildon. This means that there is no more supply of facilities than anywhere else across the borough, and it is probably easier to add one extra GP to an existing surgery, etc, than to build a new surgery before anyone lives in a location. The natural barriers of the A127 and A128 means that residents would be denied medical and school facilities until a long time after they had moved in, if they are ever provided in sufficient numbers. There is no guarantee the age or health of residents, and the site does not even have any existing public transport to take residents to facilities further afield.

5.10 Strategic Green Belt
As stated previously. Use of this area of Green Belt around Dunton is in breach of the NPPF rules on Green Belt. By building on it Brentwood will be encouraging urban sprawl and inappropriate development, as the Green Belt South of the A127 is in very short supply, therefore of higher value than the abundant Green Belt in other areas of the Borough. Building on it will mean that there is developments almost entirely from the London Borough of Havering to Southend, which is in direct contravention of Green Belt policy.

Green field Green Belt
If these areas of Greenfield are within the Green Belt south of the A127 then they will exacerbate the breach of Green Belt rules, by increasing the urban sprawl from the London Borough of Havering to Southend.

Job Growth and Employment land
5.57 Development at Dunton Hills Garden Village, and around West Horndon, will not be able to provide for new employment land, any more than housing, at building there is in strict contravention of the NPPF for Green Belt, as it would create urban sprawl spreading from the London Borough of Havering to Southend. The so called strategic highway network is the heavily congested A127, and poor C2C service, which hasn't had the investment like the A12 and Crossrail have had, so transport infrastructure for employment is better North of the Borough.

Sustainable development
The NPPF for Green Belt shows that the proposed development of 2500 properties, plus employment and traveller sites on Green Belt at Dunton is not sustainable, as a loss of the very limited areas of Green Belt South of the A127 virtually links the areas of the London Borough of Havering through to Southend, so the LDP doesn't prevent neighbouring towns merging with one another. Green Belt is not decided on because of its high landscape value, or even if it is all accessible to the public, but because of the limited supply in this area.

Managing Development Growth
It is disingenuous to say 'some' Green Belt land will be used, when you are proposing to build on virtually all the Green Belt in the Dunton area. Losing it will result in the merging of more than one town, almost entirely from the London Borough of Havering to Southend. Breaching NPPF Green Belt guidlines, without sufficient benefit, as the Dunton community will be isolated from the rest of Brentwood by the major road boundaries, and lack of connective public transport systems, together with the congested road and rail system in the area.

General Development Criteria
a. Developing Dunton will have a massive unacceptable effect on visual amenity, as well as the character appearance of the surrounding area;
b.The site is isolate from the Brentwood Borough, in an area not currently serviced by public transport or roads, so it fails to provide satisfactory means of access to the site for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians and parking and servicing arrangements;
c.There is no public transport at the Dunton site, and no spare capacity on the C2C at either Laindon or West Horndon, and the C2C service doesn't link to the rest of the Brentwood Borough, so they would be isolated. The A127 is already heavily congested, and hasn't benefitted from the massive investments of the Crossrail and A12, which would be better suited to the addition numbers of users. People trying to cross the busy A127 have frequently lost their lives, and the isolation of this development would force people into crossing the A127 and the A128 to get to the rest of the Brentwood Borough. Highways England have proposed a Lower Thames Crossing, which may come up through the middle of the proposed Dunton site, adding increased risk to health and safety from vehicles and pollution, and creating another physical barrier for the residents, as there is currently no road system in that area.
d.A development of 2500 homes, plus employment and travellers sites, will definitely have an unacceptable effect on health, because of the high levels of pollution created. The loss of GreenBelt is an unacceptable effect on the environment, particularly as the concrete, and increased vehicle use through the years of development and forever after, etc, will release pollutants to land, water or air (light, noise pollution, vibration, odour, smoke, ash, dust and grit);
e.As there is currently no access to this site, it will cause unacceptable effects to the surrounding areas of Basildon and West Horndon, and their already congested road system, through excessive noise, activity and vehicle movements; There will be a loss of the Green Belt views, and the wildlife that they would have previously contained;
f.It is doubtfull that it will take full account of opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in developments, as too much development is being planned in a small space;
g.The development shouldn't go ahead, as greater weight should be given to the existing assets conservation and enhancement;
h.As it is Green Belt, there is limited residential units to lose, but this doesn't make the development acceptable.
i.As any new development would be required to mitigate its impact on local services and community infrastructure, and there is currently no services and community infrastructure in the area, it would be essential that absolutely all of that was in place before anyone moved in, otherwise BBC are forcing new tenants, employers/ees, travellers, etc, into surviving in isolation, or using the services of nearby Basildon, which are already stretched beyond capacity.

7.1 Dunton Hills Garden Village
Representation
7.5 is wrong to state that DHGV will be linked with Brentwood and other Borough Villages, as it will be divided from them by at least two busy roads, the A127 and the A128. Also, there is no physical route directly onto the A127, and if the Lower Thames Crossing Route C4 goes ahead this will be even worse. As the only available access will be going across Basildon land, this takes residents away from the Brentwood area, and places the burden on all of Basildon services.
7.6 This claim is entirely false, as development of this site encourages urban sprawl, particularly when taken alongside the development proposed on the Basildon Draft Local Plan as well. This will remove virtually the only remaining Green Belt between the London Borough of Havering and Southend. Brentwood has twice the amount of Green Belt as Basildon, yet it is choosing to destroy the small remaining green space to the West of Basildon, which completely goes against Green Belt policy. The losses far outweigh any benefits of developing this piece of Green Belt land.
For 7.7 see 7.6 There can be no Green Belt boundaries created when the small patch of Green Belt in this area is all being proposed for development, by Brentwood and Basildon, and it will directly affect the urban sprawl, by making The London Borough of South Essex a distinct possibility for anyone living south of the A127.
7.8 It is the A12 that has the distinct possibility for growth, as that is where the improved A12 and Crossrail are, so that is where people want to live and work. The A127 has houses built up to its boundaries, not allowing for expansion, and the C2C line is worse than terrible, having regained its old title of the Misery Line. Nobody would choose gridlock on the roads or standing on a train as the ideal location to move their home or business to, particularly as infrastructure of local roads, doctors, schools, etc, would not be in place until well into any construction period, and residents would be cut off from existing Brentwood services by the busy A127 and A128, which have already proved lethal so far this year.
7.9 completely contradicts your points on 7.7, as any Duty of Cooperation to build over the entire area of Green Belt at Dunton would remove any boundary to urban sprawl, guaranteeing that there would be a London Borough of South Essex. A small corridor of Green Belt, west of the Mardyke tributary on the land, would not constitute enough Green Belt as being possible to retain the title, and it could well be buried under concrete if the Lower Thames Crossing C4 goes ahead.

Rep made against: Policy 7.10: Gypsy and Traveller Provision
Representation
Placing at least 20 sites in the 'strategic' location of Dunton is unfair on local residents in the surrounding area. This is as far away as it is possible to be from the rest of the Brentwood Borough, bordering as it does the Basildon Borough, which already has to place far in excess of any traveller pitches than anywhere else, not only in Essex but most of the country. The Basildon area has had to pay for the fiasco resulting in the removal of the illegal pitches at Dale Farm, and is now being told to not only provide Green Belt space for all of those illegal residents, but also account for any population growth that may occur from them, plus extra provision for all legal travellers. To dump Brentwood's allocation so close to the high numbers of travellers in this area sound too much like a ghetto situation is being created, which is not good for the travelling community or the neighbouring non-travelling community. The travelling community has to have easy access to adequate medical and educational needs. This will not be provided in an environment like Dunton, where it is isolated from the rest of the Brentwood borough by the busy A127 and A128. As proved recently when a traveller child died crossing the A127 in Basildon, it is unsafe for them to isolated from other amenities.

9.2 Wildlife and conservation
I object to any development at Dunton, as this will adversely affect the wildlife in this area, that is extremely close to the Essex Wildlife Trust site at Langdon Hills, and provides a wildlife corridor to the Thorndon Park, which would be lost if this development went ahead.
9.3 as above


9.8 If Development within the Green Belt will only be permitted if it maintains the Green Belt's openness and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or harm its visual amenities, then the development at Dunton should definitely not go ahead as this conflicts with the purposes of green belt by loss of some of the limited visual green space in the area south of the A127, and it is going to encourage urban sprawl by removing one of the main sections separating the London borough of Havering from Southend.

These are some of the objections I uphold on the proposed development around Dunton. It's very nature as Green Belt in an area South of the A127 which has very limited Green Belt, makes it value as such much higher than that in areas of lots of Green Belt, such as the more Northern parts of the Borough. Any development around the Dunton area foisters Brentwood's problems onto the people of Basildon, as the development would be isolated from the rest of the Borough by the major barriers of the A127 and the A128, and possibly also a new Lower Thames Crossing. Green Belt doesn't have a value because of it's leafy green views, it has a value based on its benefit to the health and mental wellbeing of surrounding areas, and its ability to stop the spread of urban sprawl. In an area already very over developed, such as the south of the A127 around Basildon towards Southend, and Upminster towards London, the small patch of Green Belt may be a drop in the ocean of the large amount of Brentwood's Green Belt (almost twice that of Basildon), but its rarity in that particular location stops everything south of the A127 becoming the London Borough of South Essex.
The development is not only bad for the existing surrounding population, but the new residents would suffer as they wouldn't have access to amenities. It would be in breach of rules on placing traveller sites within areas of easy access to medical and educational facilities. The wildlife of the area would be destroyed, as it is in the middle of the corridor between the Essex Wildlife Trust and Thorndon Park. That much concrete being built would increase the risk of flooding in an area already prone to surface water flooding. The increased pollution levels in the area from the cars from 2,500 homes in such a confined area, as well as the number of vehicles required during any building process, would be bad for the health (asthma, COPD, etc) of existing and new tenants, as well as any wildlife.
Chapter 4 - Strategic Objectives
Representation
SO7 - You claim you want to 'Optimise the social and economic benefits that arise from Crossrail for the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors to the Borough', yet you dump most of housing needs that would benefit from Crossrail south of the A127, where there are numerous problems with the C2C line, the houses would not be near a station anyway, as the A128 would create a barrier which requires residents to drive and park at either Laindon or West Horndon. A quick check on the C2C twitter and Facebook pages would tell you how many problems they have. The 2,500 houses planned for Dunton, and the 500 houses planned for West Horndon would be cut off from good transport needs, with or without the proposed Lower Thames Crossing Option C Route 4 being built, which will only add to their isolation if it went ahead.
SO8 - You claim will 'Promote and support a prosperous rural economy' yet you propose to build half of your housing allocation on Green Belt agricultural land, South of the A127.
SO9 - You claim you will 'Safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development and enhance its beneficial use', yet you propose a massive inappropriate development of the very limited supply of Green Belt South of the A127. It has greater value as there is less of it. The National Planning and Policy Framework states that that Green Belt is there to check unrestricted sprawl, and to prevent neighbouring towns from merging. The limited supply of Green Belt land in the area between Brentwood and Basildon South of the A127 is very limited, and both councils propose building up to the boundaries, thereby creating unrestricted sprawl, as well as merging neighbouring towns. South of the A127 there will be virtually no Green Belt separating the London Borough of Havering all the way to Southend. The Green Belt is also supposed to be there to assist in in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, and preserving the setting and special character of historic towns, yet you propose to build on the only bit of countryside South of the A127, when there is plenty across the rest of the borough. On a Supply and Demand basis, the Green Belt has a far higher value South of the A127 because of its rarity. Also, it preserves the character of Domesday Book villages like Dunton, West Horndon, Herongate and Ingrave, by preventing the development of the small amount of remaining Green Belt in that part of the Borough.

Chapter 5 - Spatial Strategy
Evolution of spatial strategy
Representation
You still fail to show a true picture of Herongate being directly affected by the A127 because of its very close proximity, therefore making it part of the A127 corridor. The A127 has excessive congestion on the road, and the C2C line has transformed from a good service to its original title of the Misery Line in a matter of months. it does not have the capacity for any additional customers at West Horndon, which is the only station within Brentwood Borough on the C2C line. National Rail had already confirmed last year that they had no intention of adding an extra station in any new development, so all residents of developments around the Dunton area would be solely reliant on their cars on the heavily congested A127. If the proposed Option C Route 4 gets the go ahead then the development would also be underneath a four to six lane carriageway in one direction, and an eight to ten lane carriageway in the other direction, completely cutting the development off from any Brentwood services. This means that Brentwood residents would be completely reliant on their Basildon neighbour's facilities, which are already stretched beyond capacity. You propose development around the A127 because you claim the Brentwood Urban area and North of the Borough has congestion, a lack of primary schools, GP facilities, and a higher landscape value. In actual fact, the A127 and South of the Borough suffers severely from congestion, not only on the A127 and local roads around West Horndon, but also on the Herongate and Ingrave area, that has been fighting a Twenty's Plenty campaign to improve safety on the heavily congested roads. There are no more services in the South of the Borough than the North, and a new development won't deliver new GPs and schools until well into any development, putting a strain on surrounding areas, particularly Basildon, as the natural boundaries of the A127 and A128 will prevent any residents from the Dunton area even getting to West Horndon, let alone the rest of the borough. The claim that there is a higher landscape value elsewhere is ludicrous, as quantity doesn't equate to quality. The sheer lack of Green Belt and green spaces around the A127 corridor increases the value to the residents spiritual and physical well being

Draft Plan Spatial Strategy
Representation
You still fail to show a true picture of Herongate being directly affected by the A127 because of its very close proximity, therefore making it part of the A127 corridor. The A127 has excessive congestion on the road, and the C2C line has transformed from a good service to its original title of the Misery Line in a matter of months. it does not have the capacity for any additional customers at West Horndon, which is the only station within Brentwood Borough on the C2C line. National Rail had already confirmed last year that they had no intention of adding an extra station in any new development, so all residents of developments around the Dunton area would be solely reliant on their cars on the heavily congested A127. If the proposed Option C Route 4 gets the go ahead then the development would also be underneath a four to six lane carriageway in one direction, and an eight to ten lane carriageway in the other direction, completely cutting the development off from any Brentwood services. This means that Brentwood residents would be completely reliant on their Basildon neighbour's facilities, which are already stretched beyond capacity. You propose development around the A127 because you claim the Brentwood Urban area and North of the Borough has congestion, a lack of primary schools, GP facilities, and a higher landscape value. In actual fact, the A127 and South of the Borough suffers severely from congestion, not only on the A127 and local roads around West Horndon, but also on the Herongate and Ingrave area, that has been fighting a Twenty's Plenty campaign to improve safety on the heavily congested roads. There are no more services in the South of the Borough than the North, and a new development won't deliver new GPs and schools until well into any development, putting a strain on surrounding areas, particularly Basildon, as the natural boundaries of the A127 and A128 will prevent any residents from the Dunton area even getting to West Horndon, let alone the rest of the borough. The claim that there is a higher landscape value elsewhere is ludicrous, as quantity doesn't equate to quality. The sheer lack of Green Belt and green spaces around the A127 corridor increases the value to the residents spiritual and physical well being

Housing
Representation
Re: Dunton area. This is an area of Green Belt, and there is not enough evidence put forward to show why over 1/3 of the Borough's allowance should be dumped where it goes against the rules of Green Belt, preventing Urban Sprawl, etc. Developing there, and the 500 homes planned for West Horndon, together with the unspecified number of traveller sites, etc, means that there will be virtually no Green Belt left between the London Borough of Havering and Southend. The case has not been shown that adequate facilities would be put in place for any development, prior to people living there, so they would rely heavily on the neighbouring borough of Basildon. This means that there is no more supply of facilities than anywhere else across the borough, and it is probably easier to add one extra GP to an existing surgery, etc, than to build a new surgery before anyone lives in a location. The natural barriers of the A127 and A128 means that residents would be denied medical and school facilities until a long time after they had moved in, if they are ever provided in sufficient numbers. There is no guarantee the age or health of residents, and the site does not even have any existing public transport to take residents to facilities further afield.

5.10 Strategic Green Belt
As stated previously. Use of this area of Green Belt around Dunton is in breach of the NPPF rules on Green Belt. By building on it Brentwood will be encouraging urban sprawl and inappropriate development, as the Green Belt South of the A127 is in very short supply, therefore of higher value than the abundant Green Belt in other areas of the Borough. Building on it will mean that there is developments almost entirely from the London Borough of Havering to Southend, which is in direct contravention of Green Belt policy.

Green field Green Belt
If these areas of Greenfield are within the Green Belt south of the A127 then they will exacerbate the breach of Green Belt rules, by increasing the urban sprawl from the London Borough of Havering to Southend.

Job Growth and Employment land
5.57 Development at Dunton Hills Garden Village, and around West Horndon, will not be able to provide for new employment land, any more than housing, at building there is in strict contravention of the NPPF for Green Belt, as it would create urban sprawl spreading from the London Borough of Havering to Southend. The so called strategic highway network is the heavily congested A127, and poor C2C service, which hasn't had the investment like the A12 and Crossrail have had, so transport infrastructure for employment is better North of the Borough.

Sustainable development
The NPPF for Green Belt shows that the proposed development of 2500 properties, plus employment and traveller sites on Green Belt at Dunton is not sustainable, as a loss of the very limited areas of Green Belt South of the A127 virtually links the areas of the London Borough of Havering through to Southend, so the LDP doesn't prevent neighbouring towns merging with one another. Green Belt is not decided on because of its high landscape value, or even if it is all accessible to the public, but because of the limited supply in this area.

Managing Development Growth
It is disingenuous to say 'some' Green Belt land will be used, when you are proposing to build on virtually all the Green Belt in the Dunton area. Losing it will result in the merging of more than one town, almost entirely from the London Borough of Havering to Southend. Breaching NPPF Green Belt guidlines, without sufficient benefit, as the Dunton community will be isolated from the rest of Brentwood by the major road boundaries, and lack of connective public transport systems, together with the congested road and rail system in the area.

General Development Criteria
a. Developing Dunton will have a massive unacceptable effect on visual amenity, as well as the character appearance of the surrounding area;
b.The site is isolate from the Brentwood Borough, in an area not currently serviced by public transport or roads, so it fails to provide satisfactory means of access to the site for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians and parking and servicing arrangements;
c.There is no public transport at the Dunton site, and no spare capacity on the C2C at either Laindon or West Horndon, and the C2C service doesn't link to the rest of the Brentwood Borough, so they would be isolated. The A127 is already heavily congested, and hasn't benefitted from the massive investments of the Crossrail and A12, which would be better suited to the addition numbers of users. People trying to cross the busy A127 have frequently lost their lives, and the isolation of this development would force people into crossing the A127 and the A128 to get to the rest of the Brentwood Borough. Highways England have proposed a Lower Thames Crossing, which may come up through the middle of the proposed Dunton site, adding increased risk to health and safety from vehicles and pollution, and creating another physical barrier for the residents, as there is currently no road system in that area.
d.A development of 2500 homes, plus employment and travellers sites, will definitely have an unacceptable effect on health, because of the high levels of pollution created. The loss of GreenBelt is an unacceptable effect on the environment, particularly as the concrete, and increased vehicle use through the years of development and forever after, etc, will release pollutants to land, water or air (light, noise pollution, vibration, odour, smoke, ash, dust and grit);
e.As there is currently no access to this site, it will cause unacceptable effects to the surrounding areas of Basildon and West Horndon, and their already congested road system, through excessive noise, activity and vehicle movements; There will be a loss of the Green Belt views, and the wildlife that they would have previously contained;
f.It is doubtfull that it will take full account of opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in developments, as too much development is being planned in a small space;
g.The development shouldn't go ahead, as greater weight should be given to the existing assets conservation and enhancement;
h.As it is Green Belt, there is limited residential units to lose, but this doesn't make the development acceptable.
i.As any new development would be required to mitigate its impact on local services and community infrastructure, and there is currently no services and community infrastructure in the area, it would be essential that absolutely all of that was in place before anyone moved in, otherwise BBC are forcing new tenants, employers/ees, travellers, etc, into surviving in isolation, or using the services of nearby Basildon, which are already stretched beyond capacity.

7.1 Dunton Hills Garden Village
Representation
7.5 is wrong to state that DHGV will be linked with Brentwood and other Borough Villages, as it will be divided from them by at least two busy roads, the A127 and the A128. Also, there is no physical route directly onto the A127, and if the Lower Thames Crossing Route C4 goes ahead this will be even worse. As the only available access will be going across Basildon land, this takes residents away from the Brentwood area, and places the burden on all of Basildon services.
7.6 This claim is entirely false, as development of this site encourages urban sprawl, particularly when taken alongside the development proposed on the Basildon Draft Local Plan as well. This will remove virtually the only remaining Green Belt between the London Borough of Havering and Southend. Brentwood has twice the amount of Green Belt as Basildon, yet it is choosing to destroy the small remaining green space to the West of Basildon, which completely goes against Green Belt policy. The losses far outweigh any benefits of developing this piece of Green Belt land.
For 7.7 see 7.6 There can be no Green Belt boundaries created when the small patch of Green Belt in this area is all being proposed for development, by Brentwood and Basildon, and it will directly affect the urban sprawl, by making The London Borough of South Essex a distinct possibility for anyone living south of the A127.
7.8 It is the A12 that has the distinct possibility for growth, as that is where the improved A12 and Crossrail are, so that is where people want to live and work. The A127 has houses built up to its boundaries, not allowing for expansion, and the C2C line is worse than terrible, having regained its old title of the Misery Line. Nobody would choose gridlock on the roads or standing on a train as the ideal location to move their home or business to, particularly as infrastructure of local roads, doctors, schools, etc, would not be in place until well into any construction period, and residents would be cut off from existing Brentwood services by the busy A127 and A128, which have already proved lethal so far this year.
7.9 completely contradicts your points on 7.7, as any Duty of Cooperation to build over the entire area of Green Belt at Dunton would remove any boundary to urban sprawl, guaranteeing that there would be a London Borough of South Essex. A small corridor of Green Belt, west of the Mardyke tributary on the land, would not constitute enough Green Belt as being possible to retain the title, and it could well be buried under concrete if the Lower Thames Crossing C4 goes ahead.

Rep made against: Policy 7.10: Gypsy and Traveller Provision
Representation
Placing at least 20 sites in the 'strategic' location of Dunton is unfair on local residents in the surrounding area. This is as far away as it is possible to be from the rest of the Brentwood Borough, bordering as it does the Basildon Borough, which already has to place far in excess of any traveller pitches than anywhere else, not only in Essex but most of the country. The Basildon area has had to pay for the fiasco resulting in the removal of the illegal pitches at Dale Farm, and is now being told to not only provide Green Belt space for all of those illegal residents, but also account for any population growth that may occur from them, plus extra provision for all legal travellers. To dump Brentwood's allocation so close to the high numbers of travellers in this area sound too much like a ghetto situation is being created, which is not good for the travelling community or the neighbouring non-travelling community. The travelling community has to have easy access to adequate medical and educational needs. This will not be provided in an environment like Dunton, where it is isolated from the rest of the Brentwood borough by the busy A127 and A128. As proved recently when a traveller child died crossing the A127 in Basildon, it is unsafe for them to isolated from other amenities.

9.2 Wildlife and conservation
I object to any development at Dunton, as this will adversely affect the wildlife in this area, that is extremely close to the Essex Wildlife Trust site at Langdon Hills, and provides a wildlife corridor to the Thorndon Park, which would be lost if this development went ahead.
9.3 as above


9.8 If Development within the Green Belt will only be permitted if it maintains the Green Belt's openness and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or harm its visual amenities, then the development at Dunton should definitely not go ahead as this conflicts with the purposes of green belt by loss of some of the limited visual green space in the area south of the A127, and it is going to encourage urban sprawl by removing one of the main sections separating the London borough of Havering from Southend.

See attached.

I respond the the current consultation of the draft Local Development Plan.

1. I oppose the loss of any greenbelt land to meet housing needs.
2. I challenge BBC as to why they have not contested/objected to the levels of housing development outlined on the basis of the greenbelts special needs.
3. I do not agree to the transport-corridor approach that BBC has adopted, I do not see this as a fair way of apportioning development Borough wide.
4. I refute the assumption that the A127 corridor has greater potential to sustain growth than the A12 corridor or elsewhere in the /borough.
5. Not all brownfield sites are allocated for housing redevelopment. Why?
6. I note that certain locations/areas of the Borough have requested some controlled development but this is being ignored. Why?
7. I vehemently oppose the proposals as set out for West Horndon.
8. I align my response with that as submitted by West Horndon Parish Council.
9. From an earlier consultation on the Dunton scheme, 84% of respondents opposed this. Why hne is it still being put forward?
10. West Horndon is being targeted with almost 60% of the entire Boroughs housing requirement. This is an increase on the 43% proposed in the 2013 draft! This increase is still being proposed despite the 84% objection rate to DGS.
11. DGV as proposed is not sustainable. Once again BBC has produced insufficient assessments to justify such a proposal.
12. Adjoining Authorities including Basildon and Thurrock objected to DGS as did Essex County Council. With such united rejection of the proposal, why does BBC persist with it?
13. Neither ECC nor Highways England have plans to upgrade the A127, again rendering the DGS proposal unsustainable.
14. I do support again in alignment with WHPC, for limited and controlled residential development of the current West horndon Industrial sites. However, this support would be subject a full transport.highways appraisal as the current entrance/exit to the site could absolutely not support 500 new homes with the additional traffic congestion this would bring with it!
15. Neither C2c or Network Rail have any scope to improve the current rail link. In fact recent changes to the timetable have in fact backfired causing WH residents more travel problems.
16. There are no assurances that the loss of employment land would be offered up at the new BEC.
17. Whilst Green Transport routes are mentioned in the document, here again there is no detail to support the intention for these routes.
18. West Horndon has a primary/junior school which already operates over capacity. Its doctors surgery is near capacity, any development simply has to come with the guarantee of amenities and infrastructure upgrade not just a proposal for it!

Development for the area should be as the local plan suggests with the main areas around the A12 and A127 corridors. It is essential that Dunton Village is built so that the infrastructure and community buildings are capable of serving the increase in population. To develop areas in rural north Brentwood would increase the enormous pressure on school and doctors surgeries that already exist. Similarly transport in rural areas is poor at present and will only get worse when present contracts with ECC are not renewed for economic reasons.

See attached.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 support the strategy that is being proposed because I strongly believe any new development should be built near where there is good existing infrastructure (roads, transport, services, etc) or where new infrastructure could easily and cost effectively be built.

I believe our green belt around all existing villages should be protected otherwise our countryside will be lost forever and we will end up with no rural space at all between villages. Villages such as Blackmore have existed for hundreds of years and would be completely spoilt if over developed.

I am very much in favour of the current planning strategy because:

1) We should protect our existing villages as they are special and we should work to protect them from over development from cars and houses and increasing the infrastructure. All our villages which have existed for hundreds of years will disappear if building on green belt is allowed.

2) All future development should happen where enough existing infrastructure is already in place to sustain the development.

I was pleased to be able to attend your presentation at the Ingatestone Community Centre on 22nd February. I have since been able to download the Draft Plan and read some parts of it. Overall it seems very comprehensive, well-reasoned and informative.
As a former local government housing officer for some 30+ years, I very much support the provision of more genuinely affordable housing for the Borough in general and Ingatestone in particular. The sites earmarked within Ingatestone seem to me to be good & appropriate options.
Of course the definition of "affordable" is somewhat contentious & at times Orwellian - i.e affordability = unaffordabilty. The Government seems to regard affordable as being something like 80% of market rents for the rented sector, although their whole housing policy now seems to lean overheavily towards owner-occupation with little regard for those that are unable or do not wish to buy. My view is that there is a definite need for more sub-market rented homes, provided by Housing Associations or dare I say it the local authority itself.
Obviously in an ideal world, every bit of open countryside would be protected (I say this as a keen rambler in the countryside & elsewhere), and places like Ingatestone Garden Centre (IGC) wouldn't be closing. But as IGC has closed down that seems to be an ideal site for genuinely affordable rented housing and/or low-cost owner-occupied dwellings - ideally affordable in perpetuity and perhaps with a reasonable priority for local people. I think somewhere like Ingatestone needs an increase in that type of provision. What it doesn't need is more footballers' mansions, or developments like that at Trueloves Lane (where, hilariously, the new homes were marketed as affordable with a price tag of some £1.5 million!). Without more affordable housing, where do people expect the next generation to live? Kids living with parents until they're about 50? Or moving to Scunthorpe (for example) just to find somewhere to live.
Reading a recent article in "Inside Housing" it was reported that just over 10% of England was currently used for housing. Nationally, to build some 2.5 million homes over the coming years would only take things up to around 12%. So I think we are some way short yet of concreting over the entire countryside, as some fear.
As you state in your report, any new development needs to be appropriate in scale and design for its location, have suitable infrastructure, protect Green Belt as much as possible, have suitable landscape buffers / definable boundaries etc (e.g. between Ingatestone & Mountnessing) and, where affordable housing is included with a scheme, to be well integrated (i.e. avoiding what has been referred to in the media as "poor doors"!).
On the question of affordable housing (Policy 7.5), I am aware that developers will at times seek to avoid any affordable quotas, instead making a payment for the Council / HA to develop elsewhere. I think this leads to less mixed communities and should be resisted as far as possible.
From some of the conversations I overheard at the meeting of 22nd February, I suspect a fair few local residents won't share most of my views, and will probably be in the "nimby" camp, of not building anything anywhere ever. I wonder how many of those objecting are living in developments which were themselves once open land and no doubt subject to similar objections a generation or two ago?
One thing I'd query - in Sections 7.20 /7.21 you refer to 17.1% of local households having someone with a disability / long-term illness, yet only 5% provision for such groups is proposed for new developments.
I remember at one time there was discussion of "lifetime homes" - developing new homes that could be easily adaptable for people in all stages of their life. But these are probably not popular with developers.
To finish on a parochial note, I'm wondering what the plans are for 24 Norton Road, Ingatestone - the former Children & Families Consultation Service offices - which have been empty and boarded up for some months now. I assume this site will be earmarked for housing?
Many thanks.
John Bright CIHCM

I was sent a letter to ask my view on the local plan for planning, I'm really disappointed that no plan for building some affordBle houses and bungalows in blackmore village is going to take place , I speak for many people who wish to move into blackmore village,as there are no council properties available as they av mostly been bought, I personally av lived in blackmore for 20 +years an my daughter as grown up here ,she is parthially sighted and unable to drive and also as a disabled son who attends blackmore school, as I am her carer she needs to be close by for several reasons,she has been waiting for a transfer to blackmore for 10/12 years altogether,,there is there is red rose lane and fingrith, hall lane that seems to be really good land for a few houses, it's a crying shame that the village people of blackmore don't just put there selves in the place of people who wish to move into the village for special needs,I to like the veiw of the green /brown belt,but surely there is aneed for some houses.

I support the overall policy as proposed and particularly the identification by BBC of the unique character of Brentwood as consisting of a set of villages which is why I like it and live here. That village structure though is very fragile and has been vigorously defended by successive local and parish councils and residents against a constant barrage of development attempts.

As with all development that I have witnessed in areas closer to and radiating from London there is an initial fairly easy 'win' in the redevelopment of redundant industrial and / or large house sites. This is repeated over the years until all of the obvious sites are exhausted which is effectively the position that Brentwood finds itself in. e.g. the laundry in Western Avenue, Selex plant in Woodman Road and high levels of infill and repurposing such as t he Doctors' surgery site and old Freewheeler pub site in Doddinghurst.

I believe that this leaves us in a position where the character is under threat by infill destroying the edges of the villages. There are constant attempts to expand the area of my village, Doddinghurst and it is this threat that I will return to later.

I have lived in Brentwood (Doddinghurst) for 35 years and have witnessed back garden development off my road (twice!) and other infill developments and a change in the character of Brentwood to more flats and a more transient population which has changed the town from a family town.

The character of the village nature would be lost and the social cohesion also lost if further development was permitted in Doddinghurst. The infrastructure is incapable of supporting development in terms of all utilities and services.

As importantly, the younger generation appears not to want to live as I did in the countryside with its lack of public transport and lack of access to social and entertainment facilities and easy transport at the end of a day (or night) in London. It is in short, cut-off. This makes further development unnecessary and only serves to destroy the village without appreciably answering the 'dictated' need for more housing regardless of whether long term that will be needed as properties are released by an aging population that will downsize and free up housing as the 'baby boom' generation reaches their upper 70's and beyond. Any development should take this demographic change into account in allowing people to remain amongst friends and an area they know in later life. This element seems largely missing from the LDP.

Dunton

I am of the opinion that a relatively large and self contained 'village' development is the only practical answer as proposed in the LDP to providing the number of houses demanded of Brentwood. The concept as proposed is to effectively add another 'village' south of the A127 in an attempt to re-create the organically developed villages to the north of Brentwood such as Doddinghurst.
As stated earlier, the services are largely at breaking point in my village and piecemeal infill development would require a disproportionate investment in infrastructure and services compared to the housing 'unit' gain achieved. It would also result in a disproportionate damage to the quality of life and nature of the village.

If properly developed, then a real community can be established at the Dunton site with new schools, doctors, roads, sewage and all other basic services and the A127 also upgraded from its poor current standard. There is also a greater supply of suitable available land to the south of the A127.

Reference Site Allocation Maps (January 2016)
I refer to this document and particularly to the list of non-allocated housing and employment sites.
I support the containment nature of the sites proposed elsewhere by the LDP but I am very concerned at the list of non-allocated sites including several in my village.

This list is I am aware not those that are being proposed but I am very concerned that if Dunton fails to materialise and provide the bulk of the required housing then this list might be used to provide the shortfall. Whereas the LDP proposes limited development in the northern villages, this list has what are largely opportunistic and highly invasive sites proposed.

Many of the constant development proposals that have been fought through the planning process and rightfully refused both locally and at enquiry now appear in this list. It is as if we are bombarded by sufficient planning applications to eventually wear us down and to witness a total change in our village clearly against the wishes of residents.
Individuals have purchased properties and land and have put forward development sites that would radically and irreversibly change (ruin) Doddinghurst.
In particular, there is a constant push to extend and build in the rural part of Brook Lane between Mountnessing Lane and the 'made up' part of Brook Lane nearer to the village. There are large plots backing onto a beautiful country lane with a river by its side. Recently, fences have been put up and have partly encroached on the lane and attempts made to extend with several applications for building. It would be a prize for a developer but there are no facilities or infrastructure; would create a massive back development almost parallel to Doddinghurst Road and cause danger on local roads - this in addition to the massive loss of amenity that villagers would experience by the loss of this remaining rural lane.

I trust that we will not have to face the mammoth task of fighting all over again proposals to develop this and other sites that have properly been refused in the past and that current opportunistic applications will be firmly refused.

I am a regency court resident and I wish to express my opposition to the gross over development with the proposal of three new developments of flats in Brentwood.

There seems to be no regard to local residents who already have to put up with Brentwood being grid lock either end of the day and that's before these new flats.
since the council chose to put bollards in crown st there is now only one way in and out and we share this with huge delivery lorries to b and n and Wilkos. parking on the single yellow line means access to and from regency court is difficult. add all these new developments will only make things worse and cause grid lock.
A better solution would be to build on brown field sites such as Essex way the old adult college site. it lies empty. it is less densely populated in Warley and would enhance that area. if u build anymore on the town we will end up with another sink whole through over developing.
please rethink the misery inflicted on local residents.

Infilling is the way forward for large villages such as Doddinghurst, it may not solve the long term housing dilema, but will help contribute in the short term.

Section 4 - Strategic Objectives
S.01 S.02 S.07 S.09
The general change in focus from piecemeal development to concentrating on existing hubs where there is an existing support infrastructure is good for retaining the character of the villages that makes this part of Essex what it is. Plus it is cost effective as it avoids the cost of improving transport links, schools, doctors, etc. in the more remote areas. I would imagine the costs per user to provide these services would be extremely high.

Smaller infill developments of 2/3 houses would be acceptable and not overburden exiting support infrastructures

Maximising the use of available brownfield sites and protection of the greenbelt is also important.

Centralising most of our housing need at Dunton Village, whilst not ideal, seems the most painless of options especially with the existing road and rail infrastructure being local to the development.

I have read the Local Plan with interest. I am concerned that some of the proposals for additional housing are inappropriate and they will contribute further to the terrible traffic congestion at peak times and other issues that we face in the Brentwood and Shenfield areas.

Over-development of the area will destroy the quality of life that existing residents enjoy. Any encroachment on existing Green Belt land should be prohibited.

The night-time entertainment facilities in Brentwood are already adequate and further development of them should not be encouraged otherwise they will lead to further social issues, damage to the reputation of the town and destroy the attractive character of the town centre and surrounding areas.

Extra housing will bring extra traffic and there is no attempt in the Plan to address this increasing problem. Brentwood already comes close to total gridlock on occasions and building so many new properties will simply increase the problems.

The main roads in the area covered by the Plan are the A12 and the A127. Both are woefully inadequate for the demands being placed on them already and further development of housing or employment infrastructure (such as the ports at Harwich and Felixstowe and the London Gateway terminal) unleash huge numbers of trucks on to our local reads every day. The stretches of the A12 and the A127 that run through the area should be widened to 3 or 4 lanes in either direction and be upgraded to motorway standard with hard shoulders along their entire length for safety and to help avoid traffic delays in the event of a breakdown or accident.

The Plan mentions the need for housing suited for older and disabled residents yet Brentwood Council allows the existing stock of suitable homes to be depleted - I am referring to the ongoing demolition of bungalows in Shenfield and their inevitable replacement by huge 'executive homes'. Just because it is possible to demolish an existing property and squeeze on a much bigger one does not mean it should be done. Demolition of sound properties simply to make a quick buck for the developer is a very un-green practice and one the Council should strongly discourage. It is going to be impossible for older residents to stay in this area if this practice is allowed to continue.

The proposal to develop a huge number of houses on Officers Meadow in Shenfield (site refs 034,087 & 235) will not only destroy a valuable piece of Green belt land but will inevitably lead to more traffic joining the jams that already clog up the roads in to Brentwood at peak times and will reinforce the existing overlaod on the A12 Brentwood by-pass. This is a very large development and is out of all proportion to the surrounding area.

The proposal to build houses and other facilities off Priests Lane (site refs 044 & 178) will destroy a valuable piece of open land and will add to the terrible traffic jams that currently clog Priests Lane at peak periods. Priests Lane is too narrow for the amount of traffic that already uses it and the narrow pavement along only one side makes it very dangerous for pedestrians who walk along it in fear of being mown down by passing traffic attempting to negotiate its narrow carriageway.

The plan to build Dunton Hills Garden Village is going to destroy one of the atrractive corners of the borough. It is an enormous housing estate development and calling it a 'village' cannot disguise that.

Whilst the Crossrail development is to be welcomed I wonder how much capacity it will ad because there will be no additional tracks laid towards London and I suspect that some existing services may end up being cancelled to make capacity for the Crossrail trains on the already congested lines. Increasing goods trains as a result of the London Gateway and other ports around the Essex coast mean further risk of delays and disruption to passenger services.

What we really need is the development of new rail routes - connecting from Shenfield directly to Stansted (not via Liverpool Street) and across the Thames to Gatwick as these would do a lot to reduce congestion and stimulate development in the outer London area. This is in addition to the proposed additional road development and tunnels across the Thames at Tilbury linking the A2 to the M25.

I believe that my proposals would result in a more sustainable set of developments. I hope these comments will be noted and the Plan will be reconsidered.

I read with trepidation the Draft plan - partly because of content and partly because of the length. The sceptic in me wonders if perhaps the length of the report was actually designed to elicit a minimal response as it could easily have been condensed.

A key fact that the entire report seems to miss is that the town centre is at capacity. We have totally insufficient infracture to support the residents we have; never mind the many additions that are being proposed. Doctors surgeries and hospitals cannot deal with the patient numbers (you mention the residents are getting older - surely this will just put more stress on an overburdened system). The rail network is dangerously overcrowded at peak times. The quality of schooling suffering. The roads in chaos. If the question is " are the plans capable of being accommodated" the simple answer is "no".

In the 20 + years I have lived in Brentwood I have seen it deteriorate more and more. Rather than modelling the town on the local community feel of Ingatestone and Shenfield we seem to be mirroring Romford/Croydon. I have never known people in an affluent area be so hell bent on cheapening it! You mention residents "quality of life" being important to the plan but I have grave concerns that this is indeed the case - already the influx has lead to a feeling of less safe streets and general uneasiness in the town - those of us living in the area have paid our Council tax for many years but life is getting progressively worse in the borough.

Would it not be possible to concentrate on expansion in areas that can cope and perhaps even add schools and doctors surgeries to the plans being proposed??!!

Two particular sights you state for development are absurd (1) Westbury Road is already a danger - insufficient parking borough wide leads to people (including the disabled and those with pushchairs) walking in the road facing dangerously fast traffic. How could ANYONE think that more housing and less parking would help? (2) Honeypot Lane - have you tried to pass through there at any time of day?! How can potentially 500+ of extra residents fit into the area??


When your report mentions attracting business to the area I can only assume you mean yet more fast food outlets and bars - the terms "quality independent" and "wide range" really do not apply in Brentwood. Why would any firm that plans to do anything other than pay minimum wage, overburden a location already struggling with its policing and refuse collection, come to the area. If correctly modelled the transport links could suggest Brentwood as a possible hub for business in financial services and other mediums but the tired appearance, transport problems and simply overcrowding would surely put any sensible firm off. As would no doubt 84 pitches for travellers (surely if they need a pitch they aren't infact "travelling"?)

I would hope that any business you may manage to attract might be steered in the direction of the empty spaces in our high street but the plan seems keen to build more regardless of what stands empty.

While I could not find it specifically addressed in the plan I would be interested to learn the plans for Street lighting in Brentwood. Particularly given that the ordinary person struggles though pitch black roads and pavements while the police station's "stadium lighting" blinds residents of my road.



I apologise that this response is, in all, pretty negative. It is such a shame that a place as lovely as Brentwood used to be is where it is today. I can only hope that some of my concerns, shared as they are with many, can be addressed and that, one day, we are again an area I would be proud to live in.