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.

Further to the joint consultation with Basildon last year, I wish to object and disagree with the proposals on the following basis:

1. THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSAL

The impact of a potential 20,000 new residents and 12,000 cars on the local community will be devastating. The A127 is at a standstill in rush hour and the trains are packed full.

I question the need for the amount of houses that you state in the local plan, the houses will be particularly marketed by developers in London and attract an enormous influx of people who will use Basildon facilities but pay council tax to Brentwood.

In your paragraph 7.10 you state that ...."Land around West Horndon village remains a reasonable alternative because it can provide for similar development numbers towards local needs. However, it has not been selected as a preferred site in this Draft Plan owing to the impacts on the existing village, which would not be consistent with the emerging spatial strategy. It has also been considered that proposed redevelopment within West Horndon village will bring forward significant residential development, altering the character of the village but utilising brownfield land. Further development of Green Belt surrounding West Horndon is deemed disproportionate when considering the size of the existing village and how this fits with the spatial strategy for our Borough of villages."

I would very much like an explanation as to how Brentwood council are prepared to consider the Green belt surrounding West Horndon , but are in no way considering the larger impact on the tiny rural village of Dunton. By building right up to the Basildon border it leaves Basildon with no Green Belt but fulfills the social housing responsibility and traveller quota of Brentwood Council with little impact on the rest of Brentwood. The burden and mental anguish of seeing our community change beyond recognition remains purely with West Basildon residents in Langdon Hills and Dunton.

2. SEVERE LACK OF SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE - Partiularly secondary schools


Basildon hospital, district nurses, maternity services and medical centres cannot cope with the medical needs of so many individuals.

Primary schools are oversubscribed, and secondary school provision has been an issue for years. There have been reducing child numbers in the Brentwood area, surely building 'pockets of houses' closer to these would make more sense, particularly with the Free schools that have opened/ are opening .

The roads are unbearable as it is around the Basildon District- Brentwood school buses are regularly late and delayed due to the volume of traffic.

3. LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, GREEN BELT SPACE AND RISK TO LOCAL WILDLIFE

There will be significant impact on our local wildlife and quality of life, especially from increased pollution. I question and object to the comments in paragraph 6. ..
'Although the site lies within Green Belt, development here can contribute to Green Belt purposes, such as restricting urban sprawl'.

Quite how this can be stated is beyond belief when your proposal for a Dunton Garden village will obliterate the green belt. Is this the answer - restrict further urban sprawl by building on the land that separates the villages.

4. ACCESS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT

If this preposterous and crude development goes ahead, access must be from the A128 roundabout to avoid negative impact in Langdon Hills.

5. ADDITIONAL TRAVELLER AND GIPSY SITE

It feels unjustified to dump Brentwood's traveller pitch responsibility on the border of Basildon. We would be sandwiched between 2 large traveller sites within 5 miles of each other along the A127.
In light of the recent Dale Farm debarcle, I find it extremely naïve to suggest that the provision of Traveller and Gipsy sites could be 'cohesive to the community' as stated in the Dunton garden suburb consultation. As mentioned by one of your councilors, this plan protects the villages of Brentwood and has little impact on Brentwood infrastructure.

Further to the joint consultation with Basildon last year, I wish to object and disagree with the proposals on the following basis:

1. THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSAL

The impact of a potential 20,000 new residents and 12,000 cars on the local community will be devastating. The A127 is at a standstill in rush hour and the trains are packed full.

I question the need for the amount of houses that you state in the local plan, the houses will be particularly marketed by developers in London and attract an enormous influx of people who will use Basildon facilities but pay council tax to Brentwood.

In your paragraph 7.10 you state that ...."Land around West Horndon village remains a reasonable alternative because it can provide for similar development numbers towards local needs. However, it has not been selected as a preferred site in this Draft Plan owing to the impacts on the existing village, which would not be consistent with the emerging spatial strategy. It has also been considered that proposed redevelopment within West Horndon village will bring forward significant residential development, altering the character of the village but utilising brownfield land. Further development of Green Belt surrounding West Horndon is deemed disproportionate when considering the size of the existing village and how this fits with the spatial strategy for our Borough of villages."

I would very much like an explanation as to how Brentwood council are prepared to consider the Green belt surrounding West Horndon , but are in no way considering the larger impact on the tiny rural village of Dunton. By building right up to the Basildon border it leaves Basildon with no Green Belt but fulfills the social housing responsibility and traveller quota of Brentwood Council with little impact on the rest of Brentwood. The burden and mental anguish of seeing our community change beyond recognition remains purely with West Basildon residents in Langdon Hills and Dunton.

2. SEVERE LACK OF SUPPORTING INFRASTRUCTURE - Partiularly secondary schools


Basildon hospital, district nurses, maternity services and medical centres cannot cope with the medical needs of so many individuals.

Primary schools are oversubscribed, and secondary school provision has been an issue for years. There have been reducing child numbers in the Brentwood area, surely building 'pockets of houses' closer to these would make more sense, particularly with the Free schools that have opened/ are opening .

The roads are unbearable as it is around the Basildon District- Brentwood school buses are regularly late and delayed due to the volume of traffic.

3. LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, GREEN BELT SPACE AND RISK TO LOCAL WILDLIFE

There will be significant impact on our local wildlife and quality of life, especially from increased pollution. I question and object to the comments in paragraph 6. ..
'Although the site lies within Green Belt, development here can contribute to Green Belt purposes, such as restricting urban sprawl'.

Quite how this can be stated is beyond belief when your proposal for a Dunton Garden village will obliterate the green belt. Is this the answer - restrict further urban sprawl by building on the land that separates the villages.

4. ACCESS TO NEW DEVELOPMENT

If this preposterous and crude development goes ahead, access must be from the A128 roundabout to avoid negative impact in Langdon Hills.

5. ADDITIONAL TRAVELLER AND GIPSY SITE

It feels unjustified to dump Brentwood's traveller pitch responsibility on the border of Basildon. We would be sandwiched between 2 large traveller sites within 5 miles of each other along the A127.
In light of the recent Dale Farm debarcle, I find it extremely naïve to suggest that the provision of Traveller and Gipsy sites could be 'cohesive to the community' as stated in the Dunton garden suburb consultation. As mentioned by one of your councilors, this plan protects the villages of Brentwood and has little impact on Brentwood infrastructure.

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.

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.

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.

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.

See attached.

See attached

See attached

See attached.

See attached.

See attachment.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

Having studied the draft local housing plan for Brentwood in some depth, I notice there is a plan to build on the land adjacent to the A12 (on its northern side) which is situated between the A12 and Viking Way. On a personal note, and I beg your indulgence as it is at odds with what I believe is best for our town, my wife and I have often said, during our thirty three years of residency here, that if this land was to be developed in the way proposed it would reduce, or even eradicate, the noise nuisance from the A12 that has increased over the years, mainly owing to regular resurfacing of the road resulting in it being higher now. As we find this so objectionable, I spent a great deal of time obtaining signatures on a petition for Vicki Davies who was able, on the strength of this, to arrange for noise testing to be done. The levels exceed those that are considered to be acceptable and it was proposed that a low noise surface be reinstated as this had reduced noise in the past. That was several years ago and nothing has been done!

It is common knowledge that for some years our housing stock has been diminishing, resulting in an increasing number of people being homeless, and I am a great believer in that something needs to be done to address this problem. I firmly believed that the best way forward was to develop brown fill areas such as the one local to me on the Highwood hospital site which, I believe, was very well done by the developers - a site to be proud of! Unfortunately, its completion has caused some problems.

After the houses on the site were fully occupied, I have it on good authority that when one of the GPs at the Brambles Surgery (the surgery situated on this site) retired, the local health authority refused to replace him. The NHS managers had expected his 1500 or so patients to be absorbed into existing local surgeries. One of these offered to run the practice as a branch surgery providing another GP could be employed my them, funded by the local health authority. The NHS managers, again, refused and this plan was only accepted when all the local surgeries closed their lists to new patients. Further to this, I learnt on the 2nd of February that there was a twenty six day wait for the first GP appointment at the surgery that I attend although, in fairness, patients are seen if the doctors feel the case is an emergency.

Since the Highwood hospital development, traffic between it and the centre of town has increased significantly. Testimony to this was one of our councillors complaining that he was finding it increasingly difficult to turn right out of Geary Drive onto the Ongar Road. This, of course, was remedied for him by the construction of the mini roundabout at this junction.

Although the draft plans discuss, very fully, the subject of infrastructure, considering the poor record of upgrading these to meet increasing needs, highlighted by the shortcomings above, I am not convinced that the residents of Brentwood would not suffer adversely if the proposals for the developments planned in the town and its environs are adopted.

Because of this, for some time now, I have come to recognise that the best solution for overcoming the housing shortage would be to build new towns well away from existing built up areas. There would almost certainly be some objections to this type of development by people living close to them but, owing to the relative remoteness of appropriate sites, the numbers objecting to and effected by them pale into insignificance compared to those living in already developed urban and suburban areas.

Other advantages of new towns/garden villages include, among other things, self sufficiency which means that all necessary facilities such as GP surgeries are included and, as such, are far more likely to meet the needs of residents compared to the erosion of services, as explained above, when attempting to boost existing facilities to meet additional needs. Although I am not in a position of knowledge to comment with any authority on schools, I suspect the same could be true of the provision of education for our young people.

Another obvious benefit of this type of development is, despite accommodating large numbers, the impact of traffic in local towns would be far less compared to that created by the provision of in town housing schemes - this also addresses one of my main concerns; one which I am sure is shared by many of Brentwood's residents.

With the above points in mind, I applaud the plan for Dunton Hills Garden Village and congratulate the planners for its conception. My greatest hope is that another area, or areas, could be developed in this way as an alternative to the additional housing being considered for development in Brentwood town and areas in close proximity to it.

See attached.

See eight attached documents

See eight attached documents