My wife and I attended the presentation evening at Shenfield Parish Hall and now respond to what we saw.

1. We accept the need for more housing as Brentwood's contribution to providing accommodation to the growing population and think this is best served by finding large plots where a cross section of housing can be offered

2. We therefore thought the option of Officers Meadow (near to us) and other such large sites should generally be supported

3. We have far more doubts about the large extent of 'fill in' housing that seems to be in the plan which should only be done if it does not change the character of the living conditions of those houses near to the 'fill in' plots

4. Specifically the plot off Priests Lane would seem likely to add to the already crowded road conditions in peak periods and, unless a solution can be found to that problem, be a poor choice

5. We are also very strong in our opinion that building housing should come with a plan for services. (I grew up in Chelmsford whose character was wrecked by house building fast out running the creation of services and leisure facilities).

6. In that context the plan to build football pitches for Hutton FC (I am not a member and have nothing to do with them) near to Officers Meadow is an excellent one but should be extended to build an all year round facility perhaps including cricket and tennis and even bowls for the summer to the assets are used fully

7. We also feel that there is likely to be a continuing under provision of homes for the elderly as well as the young first home seekers. There are many large family homes in Brentwood and Shenfield that are now occupied by two people. The lack of quality homes in which they could downsize (and the badly thought out stamp duty tax) means many of the over 60s will sit tight whereas the town would be best served by accommodating their move and freeing up the family homes. This is not just about bungalows but apartments and smaller homes near services

8. Lastly a specific point as you had a display about flooding. There is an underground stream under the Courage Fields that runs under the housing onto Chelmsford Road and leads to some flooding when rain is heavy (noticeable on the corner by the Vets). It is not yet a major problem but should be noted and nothing done to make it worse

1.
I strongly object to the current Spatial Strategy in the draft Local Plan. It fails to take into account the needs of existing villages in the north of the Borough.

The draft Local Plan disproportionally favours the centre and south of the Borough, along existing transport corridors that are already congested, while failing to take into account the needs of existing villages in the north of the Borough, like Blackmore. The Strategic Growth Options consultation document (2015) recognizes that villages must grow to provide for local need, the current draft Spatial Strategy fails to take this into account. Where is the evidence to support this U-turn in planning policy?

2.
Has the Council provided a Settlement Hierarchy paper to assess the needs at local villages?

For example what is the justification in allowing development at Mountessing, rather than larger villages further north in the Borough, like Blackmore? If the Council is basing the plan on transport corridors alone, it has failed to objectively assess the needs across the entire Borough.

3.
SO's 1 &2 (pg 25) prejudice development growth to existing or proposed infrastructure to the centre and south of the Borough. The Council has a duty of care to ensure the entire Borough's needs are met to 2033 and the draft plan only meets the needs of part of the Borough.

4.
S03 is not being met in the north of the Borough in the respect of creating "inclusive, balanced, sustainable communities" (p25) to the year 2033. An objectively assessed local plan would recognize the need to ensure that existing villages, like Blackmore, need some development to retain their working population which will ensure that services such as local shops, leisure amenities, primary schools, GP practices and public transport services are sustained.

5.
The proposed plan fails to spread economic prosperity across the Borough and in particular in the north of the Borough. SO4, S05, S06, S07 promoting Economic Prosperity in the Borough (pg 25) focus on Brentwood and new development in the south of the Borough. There is no evidence that this plan seeks to implement SO8 (Promote and support a prosperous rural economy) in the north of the Borough because no GB development is planned, despite there being no brownfield opportunities.

6.
How do you define "inappropriate" (S09 Safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development and enhance its beneficial use, pg 26)? A 10% increase in existing villages for the next 20 years (is "inappropriate") but the creation of a new garden village of 2,500 houses (is "appropriate")?

7. How do you define "character"?

Para. 5.21 of the draft plan indicate's that development in the rural north and rural south will be limited to retain local "character". Throughout the plan there are references to safeguarding the GB land and then the need to release some GB land for development as 96% of the Borough falls in GB allocation. Surely the loss of village services as a result of inadequate housing and subsequent decline in the working age community will result in a detrimental "character"?

8. Assessment of GB Site

An assessment of 60 GB sites was produced after this plan was written. And yet the draft plan proposes to create a new garden village at Dunton Hills on GB land that is rated "medium value", for 2,500 new homes (35%) of housing needs in the Borough to 2033, compared to SHLAA site G070A, Land South of Redrose Lane, Blackmore, being promoted by Crest Nicholson for circa 40 houses within the village with clearly defensible boundaries is also rated "medium" but not part of the proposed allocation plan. A Local Housing Requirements Study for Blackmore by Barton Wilmore in August 2013 projected household growth in the village required circa 80 dwellings in the next 20 years.

9. Villages in the north of the Borough will atrophy over the period of the plan.

As the plan covers the to period 2033, Blackmore and some of the other larger villages in the north of the Borough will atrophy in this timespan. How when both sites are rated GB "medium value" can it be justified to "create" rather than "sustain" a village?

Furthermore as the Council has noted "new housing growth will deliver a boost to the local economy" para. 5.39 Why then is there no consideration of the larger villages, like Blackmore in the north of the Borough?

10.
I strongly object to the creation of a new garden village at Dunton Hills.
The proposed new village is not equitable, deliverable or sustainable, requires the release of a significant area of GB land, adds more pressure to the already congested A127, is disproportionate in terms of total housing capacity for the Borough from one single source and will not be deliverable within a reasonable timeframe. I strongly disagree that para 5.41 "A proportionate approach has been taken...". It is clear contrary to para 5.42 the Council has NOT "applied densities to potential development sites in a realistic manner...".

11. Brownfield Redevelopment Opportunities in the rural north and rural south of the Borough

These "Brownfield redevelopment opportunities" (para 5.33) do not exist in the GB villages to the north of the Borough. The case has been made in this draft plan that larger villages in the rural north of the Borough have limited services/amenities and therefore development should not take place here. A limited amount of development needs to take place here to ensure the future vitality and viability of villages like Blackmore. This does not mean changing the "character" of the north of the Borough but rather managing growth in a discrete and viable way.

12.
I strongly disagree with the statement para 5.41 "the Council has reluctantly considered appropriate and sustainable locations within Green Belt". (See point 8 above)

With regard to S010 (Protect & enhance valuable landscape & the natural and historic environment), Figure 9.1 Environment and Biodiversity (p126) indicates that the proposed development sites to the south of the Borough are in areas of a high concentration of both local wildlife sites and sites of special scientific interest, compared to those in the north of the Borough which have a much lower concentration of these sites.

What justification can there be to allow the development of 2,500 houses in one area in GB, while not allowing a 10% growth of existing villages in the next 20 years. Para 9.53 "Development will be restricted to those limited types of development which may be allowed in exceptional circumstances within the Green Belt" but barring Brownfield opportunities such development has been excluded in the rural villages of the north of the Borough.

13.
With regard to SO11, S012, S13 re the Quality of Life & Community Infrastructure, rural villages to the north of the Borough have been largely overlooked.

For example S012 Improving public transport, cycle and walking facilities and encourage sustainable transport choices should be implemented throughout the Borough. Villages such as Blackmore need to maintain a demand for a bus service for it to be economically viable for services to run which means the village needs to maintain an active, balanced community. The existing road network needs to be maintained to 2033 to enable rural villages to reach existing and new services/amenities available in the Brentwood area.

The bias of the current plan is again evidenced by the lack of a proposed Green Travel Route linking villages to the north of the Borough to Brentwood and/or train links. Figure 10.1 Proposes a Green Travel Route to support the proposed development in the south, while ignoring linkages and benefits for those villages in the north of the Borough.

Ensuring a viable bus service, maintaining current road networks and implementing a Green Travel Route to the north of Brentwood would be in line with S011 & S012.

S013 benefits the centre and south of the Borough alone if the plan allows for no development to take place in the rural north. It seems that the population of the Borough is intended to be concentrated in a confined geographic area. It must be possible to protect and enjoy the GB in the Borough while at the same time permitting a more equitable dispersal of the population in the area available.

14. Primary school places in the Borough

I note that Brentwood has capacity for secondary school places but limited capacity for primary school places. Building new villages and new schools takes a significant amount of time. Keeping primary schools open in rural villages is key to ensuring an "inclusive, balanced, sustainable" pg 25 S03 community. Primary school capacity currently exists within the village of Blackmore and perhaps within other villages. Do we need to create a new village or focus on maintaining the ones that currently exist?

15. Housing Trajectory

Para 5.46 states that "The Council has strived to be realistic about the likelihood of sites coming forward .... A clear commitment is shown in this Plan to bring forward land as quickly as possible to meet housing needs swiftly in line with national policy and guidance."

May I ask why, when in the Council's SHLAA (2010) and Draft Site Assessment (July 2013) site (ref 70A, site 076 in this plan) is identified as a suitable site for development of new housing being within defensible boundaries of the village and available to be delivered within 1-5 years, the Council's new spatial policy eliminates this site?

Crest Nicholson, second time National Builder of the Year, have a vision statement that identifies the benefits and opportunities to Blackmore for the development of site 076. I believe it can be proven that it falls within national policy and guidance. This site is achievable and could assist with the five year housing suppy. This complies with site selection para 7.29 "The fourth tier allows for limited greenfield sites in the GB which comprise urban extensions within reach of services and infrastructure and with defensible boundaries".

16. Travel by non-car modes

It is not reasonable to have a policy para. 7.62 that requires: "the ability to travel by non-car modes" in a Borough with an extensive rural community. This again demonstrates extreme bias and a lack of consideration for assuring the future viability of the Borough's rural villages in the north. Furthermore if development is to be limited to areas where non-car modes exist, then the local plan will be spatially inequitable... as this draft is.

Thank you for re-considering these points and re-examining the draft plan.

1.
I strongly object to the current Spatial Strategy in the draft Local Plan. It fails to take into account the needs of existing villages in the north of the Borough.

The draft Local Plan disproportionally favours the centre and south of the Borough, along existing transport corridors that are already congested, while failing to take into account the needs of existing villages in the north of the Borough, like Blackmore. The Strategic Growth Options consultation document (2015) recognizes that villages must grow to provide for local need, the current draft Spatial Strategy fails to take this into account. Where is the evidence to support this U-turn in planning policy?

2.
Has the Council provided a Settlement Hierarchy paper to assess the needs at local villages?

For example what is the justification in allowing development at Mountessing, rather than larger villages further north in the Borough, like Blackmore? If the Council is basing the plan on transport corridors alone, it has failed to objectively assess the needs across the entire Borough.

3.
SO's 1 &2 (pg 25) prejudice development growth to existing or proposed infrastructure to the centre and south of the Borough. The Council has a duty of care to ensure the entire Borough's needs are met to 2033 and the draft plan only meets the needs of part of the Borough.

4.
S03 is not being met in the north of the Borough in the respect of creating "inclusive, balanced, sustainable communities" (p25) to the year 2033. An objectively assessed local plan would recognize the need to ensure that existing villages, like Blackmore, need some development to retain their working population which will ensure that services such as local shops, leisure amenities, primary schools, GP practices and public transport services are sustained.

5.
The proposed plan fails to spread economic prosperity across the Borough and in particular in the north of the Borough. SO4, S05, S06, S07 promoting Economic Prosperity in the Borough (pg 25) focus on Brentwood and new development in the south of the Borough. There is no evidence that this plan seeks to implement SO8 (Promote and support a prosperous rural economy) in the north of the Borough because no GB development is planned, despite there being no brownfield opportunities.

6.
How do you define "inappropriate" (S09 Safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development and enhance its beneficial use, pg 26)? A 10% increase in existing villages for the next 20 years (is "inappropriate") but the creation of a new garden village of 2,500 houses (is "appropriate")?

7. How do you define "character"?

Para. 5.21 of the draft plan indicate's that development in the rural north and rural south will be limited to retain local "character". Throughout the plan there are references to safeguarding the GB land and then the need to release some GB land for development as 96% of the Borough falls in GB allocation. Surely the loss of village services as a result of inadequate housing and subsequent decline in the working age community will result in a detrimental "character"?

8. Assessment of GB Site

An assessment of 60 GB sites was produced after this plan was written. And yet the draft plan proposes to create a new garden village at Dunton Hills on GB land that is rated "medium value", for 2,500 new homes (35%) of housing needs in the Borough to 2033, compared to SHLAA site G070A, Land South of Redrose Lane, Blackmore, being promoted by Crest Nicholson for circa 40 houses within the village with clearly defensible boundaries is also rated "medium" but not part of the proposed allocation plan. A Local Housing Requirements Study for Blackmore by Barton Wilmore in August 2013 projected household growth in the village required circa 80 dwellings in the next 20 years.

9. Villages in the north of the Borough will atrophy over the period of the plan.

As the plan covers the to period 2033, Blackmore and some of the other larger villages in the north of the Borough will atrophy in this timespan. How when both sites are rated GB "medium value" can it be justified to "create" rather than "sustain" a village?

Furthermore as the Council has noted "new housing growth will deliver a boost to the local economy" para. 5.39 Why then is there no consideration of the larger villages, like Blackmore in the north of the Borough?

10.
I strongly object to the creation of a new garden village at Dunton Hills.
The proposed new village is not equitable, deliverable or sustainable, requires the release of a significant area of GB land, adds more pressure to the already congested A127, is disproportionate in terms of total housing capacity for the Borough from one single source and will not be deliverable within a reasonable timeframe. I strongly disagree that para 5.41 "A proportionate approach has been taken...". It is clear contrary to para 5.42 the Council has NOT "applied densities to potential development sites in a realistic manner...".

11. Brownfield Redevelopment Opportunities in the rural north and rural south of the Borough

These "Brownfield redevelopment opportunities" (para 5.33) do not exist in the GB villages to the north of the Borough. The case has been made in this draft plan that larger villages in the rural north of the Borough have limited services/amenities and therefore development should not take place here. A limited amount of development needs to take place here to ensure the future vitality and viability of villages like Blackmore. This does not mean changing the "character" of the north of the Borough but rather managing growth in a discrete and viable way.

12.
I strongly disagree with the statement para 5.41 "the Council has reluctantly considered appropriate and sustainable locations within Green Belt". (See point 8 above)

With regard to S010 (Protect & enhance valuable landscape & the natural and historic environment), Figure 9.1 Environment and Biodiversity (p126) indicates that the proposed development sites to the south of the Borough are in areas of a high concentration of both local wildlife sites and sites of special scientific interest, compared to those in the north of the Borough which have a much lower concentration of these sites.

What justification can there be to allow the development of 2,500 houses in one area in GB, while not allowing a 10% growth of existing villages in the next 20 years. Para 9.53 "Development will be restricted to those limited types of development which may be allowed in exceptional circumstances within the Green Belt" but barring Brownfield opportunities such development has been excluded in the rural villages of the north of the Borough.

13.
With regard to SO11, S012, S13 re the Quality of Life & Community Infrastructure, rural villages to the north of the Borough have been largely overlooked.

For example S012 Improving public transport, cycle and walking facilities and encourage sustainable transport choices should be implemented throughout the Borough. Villages such as Blackmore need to maintain a demand for a bus service for it to be economically viable for services to run which means the village needs to maintain an active, balanced community. The existing road network needs to be maintained to 2033 to enable rural villages to reach existing and new services/amenities available in the Brentwood area.

The bias of the current plan is again evidenced by the lack of a proposed Green Travel Route linking villages to the north of the Borough to Brentwood and/or train links. Figure 10.1 Proposes a Green Travel Route to support the proposed development in the south, while ignoring linkages and benefits for those villages in the north of the Borough.

Ensuring a viable bus service, maintaining current road networks and implementing a Green Travel Route to the north of Brentwood would be in line with S011 & S012.

S013 benefits the centre and south of the Borough alone if the plan allows for no development to take place in the rural north. It seems that the population of the Borough is intended to be concentrated in a confined geographic area. It must be possible to protect and enjoy the GB in the Borough while at the same time permitting a more equitable dispersal of the population in the area available.

14. Primary school places in the Borough

I note that Brentwood has capacity for secondary school places but limited capacity for primary school places. Building new villages and new schools takes a significant amount of time. Keeping primary schools open in rural villages is key to ensuring an "inclusive, balanced, sustainable" pg 25 S03 community. Primary school capacity currently exists within the village of Blackmore and perhaps within other villages. Do we need to create a new village or focus on maintaining the ones that currently exist?

15. Housing Trajectory

Para 5.46 states that "The Council has strived to be realistic about the likelihood of sites coming forward .... A clear commitment is shown in this Plan to bring forward land as quickly as possible to meet housing needs swiftly in line with national policy and guidance."

May I ask why, when in the Council's SHLAA (2010) and Draft Site Assessment (July 2013) site (ref 70A, site 076 in this plan) is identified as a suitable site for development of new housing being within defensible boundaries of the village and available to be delivered within 1-5 years, the Council's new spatial policy eliminates this site?

Crest Nicholson, second time National Builder of the Year, have a vision statement that identifies the benefits and opportunities to Blackmore for the development of site 076. I believe it can be proven that it falls within national policy and guidance. This site is achievable and could assist with the five year housing suppy. This complies with site selection para 7.29 "The fourth tier allows for limited greenfield sites in the GB which comprise urban extensions within reach of services and infrastructure and with defensible boundaries".

16. Travel by non-car modes

It is not reasonable to have a policy para. 7.62 that requires: "the ability to travel by non-car modes" in a Borough with an extensive rural community. This again demonstrates extreme bias and a lack of consideration for assuring the future viability of the Borough's rural villages in the north. Furthermore if development is to be limited to areas where non-car modes exist, then the local plan will be spatially inequitable... as this draft is.

Thank you for re-considering these points and re-examining the draft plan.

1.
I strongly object to the current Spatial Strategy in the draft Local Plan. It fails to take into account the needs of existing villages in the north of the Borough.

The draft Local Plan disproportionally favours the centre and south of the Borough, along existing transport corridors that are already congested, while failing to take into account the needs of existing villages in the north of the Borough, like Blackmore. The Strategic Growth Options consultation document (2015) recognizes that villages must grow to provide for local need, the current draft Spatial Strategy fails to take this into account. Where is the evidence to support this U-turn in planning policy?

2.
Has the Council provided a Settlement Hierarchy paper to assess the needs at local villages?

For example what is the justification in allowing development at Mountessing, rather than larger villages further north in the Borough, like Blackmore? If the Council is basing the plan on transport corridors alone, it has failed to objectively assess the needs across the entire Borough.

3.
SO's 1 &2 (pg 25) prejudice development growth to existing or proposed infrastructure to the centre and south of the Borough. The Council has a duty of care to ensure the entire Borough's needs are met to 2033 and the draft plan only meets the needs of part of the Borough.

4.
S03 is not being met in the north of the Borough in the respect of creating "inclusive, balanced, sustainable communities" (p25) to the year 2033. An objectively assessed local plan would recognize the need to ensure that existing villages, like Blackmore, need some development to retain their working population which will ensure that services such as local shops, leisure amenities, primary schools, GP practices and public transport services are sustained.

5.
The proposed plan fails to spread economic prosperity across the Borough and in particular in the north of the Borough. SO4, S05, S06, S07 promoting Economic Prosperity in the Borough (pg 25) focus on Brentwood and new development in the south of the Borough. There is no evidence that this plan seeks to implement SO8 (Promote and support a prosperous rural economy) in the north of the Borough because no GB development is planned, despite there being no brownfield opportunities.

6.
How do you define "inappropriate" (S09 Safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development and enhance its beneficial use, pg 26)? A 10% increase in existing villages for the next 20 years (is "inappropriate") but the creation of a new garden village of 2,500 houses (is "appropriate")?

7. How do you define "character"?

Para. 5.21 of the draft plan indicate's that development in the rural north and rural south will be limited to retain local "character". Throughout the plan there are references to safeguarding the GB land and then the need to release some GB land for development as 96% of the Borough falls in GB allocation. Surely the loss of village services as a result of inadequate housing and subsequent decline in the working age community will result in a detrimental "character"?

8. Assessment of GB Site

An assessment of 60 GB sites was produced after this plan was written. And yet the draft plan proposes to create a new garden village at Dunton Hills on GB land that is rated "medium value", for 2,500 new homes (35%) of housing needs in the Borough to 2033, compared to SHLAA site G070A, Land South of Redrose Lane, Blackmore, being promoted by Crest Nicholson for circa 40 houses within the village with clearly defensible boundaries is also rated "medium" but not part of the proposed allocation plan. A Local Housing Requirements Study for Blackmore by Barton Wilmore in August 2013 projected household growth in the village required circa 80 dwellings in the next 20 years.

9. Villages in the north of the Borough will atrophy over the period of the plan.

As the plan covers the to period 2033, Blackmore and some of the other larger villages in the north of the Borough will atrophy in this timespan. How when both sites are rated GB "medium value" can it be justified to "create" rather than "sustain" a village?

Furthermore as the Council has noted "new housing growth will deliver a boost to the local economy" para. 5.39 Why then is there no consideration of the larger villages, like Blackmore in the north of the Borough?

10.
I strongly object to the creation of a new garden village at Dunton Hills.
The proposed new village is not equitable, deliverable or sustainable, requires the release of a significant area of GB land, adds more pressure to the already congested A127, is disproportionate in terms of total housing capacity for the Borough from one single source and will not be deliverable within a reasonable timeframe. I strongly disagree that para 5.41 "A proportionate approach has been taken...". It is clear contrary to para 5.42 the Council has NOT "applied densities to potential development sites in a realistic manner...".

11. Brownfield Redevelopment Opportunities in the rural north and rural south of the Borough

These "Brownfield redevelopment opportunities" (para 5.33) do not exist in the GB villages to the north of the Borough. The case has been made in this draft plan that larger villages in the rural north of the Borough have limited services/amenities and therefore development should not take place here. A limited amount of development needs to take place here to ensure the future vitality and viability of villages like Blackmore. This does not mean changing the "character" of the north of the Borough but rather managing growth in a discrete and viable way.

12.
I strongly disagree with the statement para 5.41 "the Council has reluctantly considered appropriate and sustainable locations within Green Belt". (See point 8 above)

With regard to S010 (Protect & enhance valuable landscape & the natural and historic environment), Figure 9.1 Environment and Biodiversity (p126) indicates that the proposed development sites to the south of the Borough are in areas of a high concentration of both local wildlife sites and sites of special scientific interest, compared to those in the north of the Borough which have a much lower concentration of these sites.

What justification can there be to allow the development of 2,500 houses in one area in GB, while not allowing a 10% growth of existing villages in the next 20 years. Para 9.53 "Development will be restricted to those limited types of development which may be allowed in exceptional circumstances within the Green Belt" but barring Brownfield opportunities such development has been excluded in the rural villages of the north of the Borough.

13.
With regard to SO11, S012, S13 re the Quality of Life & Community Infrastructure, rural villages to the north of the Borough have been largely overlooked.

For example S012 Improving public transport, cycle and walking facilities and encourage sustainable transport choices should be implemented throughout the Borough. Villages such as Blackmore need to maintain a demand for a bus service for it to be economically viable for services to run which means the village needs to maintain an active, balanced community. The existing road network needs to be maintained to 2033 to enable rural villages to reach existing and new services/amenities available in the Brentwood area.

The bias of the current plan is again evidenced by the lack of a proposed Green Travel Route linking villages to the north of the Borough to Brentwood and/or train links. Figure 10.1 Proposes a Green Travel Route to support the proposed development in the south, while ignoring linkages and benefits for those villages in the north of the Borough.

Ensuring a viable bus service, maintaining current road networks and implementing a Green Travel Route to the north of Brentwood would be in line with S011 & S012.

S013 benefits the centre and south of the Borough alone if the plan allows for no development to take place in the rural north. It seems that the population of the Borough is intended to be concentrated in a confined geographic area. It must be possible to protect and enjoy the GB in the Borough while at the same time permitting a more equitable dispersal of the population in the area available.

14. Primary school places in the Borough

I note that Brentwood has capacity for secondary school places but limited capacity for primary school places. Building new villages and new schools takes a significant amount of time. Keeping primary schools open in rural villages is key to ensuring an "inclusive, balanced, sustainable" pg 25 S03 community. Primary school capacity currently exists within the village of Blackmore and perhaps within other villages. Do we need to create a new village or focus on maintaining the ones that currently exist?

15. Housing Trajectory

Para 5.46 states that "The Council has strived to be realistic about the likelihood of sites coming forward .... A clear commitment is shown in this Plan to bring forward land as quickly as possible to meet housing needs swiftly in line with national policy and guidance."

May I ask why, when in the Council's SHLAA (2010) and Draft Site Assessment (July 2013) site (ref 70A, site 076 in this plan) is identified as a suitable site for development of new housing being within defensible boundaries of the village and available to be delivered within 1-5 years, the Council's new spatial policy eliminates this site?

Crest Nicholson, second time National Builder of the Year, have a vision statement that identifies the benefits and opportunities to Blackmore for the development of site 076. I believe it can be proven that it falls within national policy and guidance. This site is achievable and could assist with the five year housing suppy. This complies with site selection para 7.29 "The fourth tier allows for limited greenfield sites in the GB which comprise urban extensions within reach of services and infrastructure and with defensible boundaries".

16. Travel by non-car modes

It is not reasonable to have a policy para. 7.62 that requires: "the ability to travel by non-car modes" in a Borough with an extensive rural community. This again demonstrates extreme bias and a lack of consideration for assuring the future viability of the Borough's rural villages in the north. Furthermore if development is to be limited to areas where non-car modes exist, then the local plan will be spatially inequitable... as this draft is.

Thank you for re-considering these points and re-examining the draft plan.

I object to ANY proposals to build on greenbelt land including the planned dunton garden village, I feel the supposed need for 5000 to 6000 houses is not to cater for the existing residents in the Brentwood area but will be mostly for people coming in to the area from other places. We do not have the necessary infrastructure to support this many new residents, the roads, schools, doctors, hospitals are already struggling to cope with the needs of the existing locals
Brentwood cannot fulfil housing targets due to greenbelt constraints and should not consider re-designating greenbelt land as viable for development as it has done with land where the A127 meets the M25, this was supposed to be used temporarily and returned to greenbelt.
Castle Point council has refused to consider building on their greenbelt and our councillors should also refuse to build on greenbelt as it is vital to keep us from becoming an extension of London, the London Borough of Brentwood, It is also vital environmentally to help keep our air clean, the pollution in the air is already dangerously close to illegal levels

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached

See eight attached documents

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

Q1. Object to the Draft Plan

Q2. Very dissatisfied that Brentwood Borough Council proposes to located over one third of its new housing on the edge of their border next to Basildon, with the effect that the burden (e.g. infrastructure) will fall on the Borough of Basildon.

Q3. Very dissatisfied with the way in which Brentwood Borough Council are proposing to spread housing need across the Borough.

Q4. Very dissatisfied with the way in which Brentwood Borough Council is protecting the Green Belt and observing its aims. Added to the development plans of Basildon Council, the housing and industrial developments proposed would create an almost unbroken strip of development in the Green Belt along the A127, effectively joining Basildon to Upminster.

Q5. Very dissatisfied with the way in which Brentwood Borough Council has taken care to protect the village of Dunton Wayletts. In the Draft Plan the Council states it wants to protect the Green Belt around its villages, however Dunton Hills Garden Village combined with the development planned by Basildon Council would remove all the Green Belt land around Dunton Wayletts.

Q6. Very dissatisfied in relation to the likelihood / capability for the local road network to be improved sufficiently to handle the increased traffic. The new homes and industrial premises will add thousands more vehicles to the roads, on top of the traffic generated by Basildon's Plan. Roads such as the A127 already suffer regular congestion.

Q7. Dissatisfied in relation to the likelihood / capability of railway capacity to be increased sufficiently to accommodate the growth in passenger numbers. New homes proposed by Brentwood and Basildon Council will greatly increase the local population. The local railway service is currently overloaded at peak times.

Q8. Very dissatisfied in relation to the ability for local medical services to sufficiently cope with the increased capacity generated by the additional residents.

Q9. Very dissatisfied with the way in which Brentwood Borough Council have considered the impact that its plans would have on Dunton Wayletts, which is an important historical village.

Q10. Dissatisfied with the thought given to the risks associated with locating large housing development and schools in the Dunton area, which has extremely high levels of air pollution and is close to a major Accident Hazard Pipeline.

Q11. Very dissatisfied with the way in which Brentwood Borough Council's plans take account of the particular circumstances of those living in a mobile home. The great majority of Dunton Wayletts inhabitants live on Dunton Park.