I agree in principle to a green belt policy but by not using small areas of land next to residential property that are in the green belt that have no significant value to the green belt in that they are not of use in farming or of recreational value and are in fact detrimental to the surrounding area in that they not normally maintained as there is no value in doing so. These areas which I have one of should be used for housing as they do not detract from the green belt like new developments you propose at Dunton
My area in Hay Green lane is next to and opposite residential housing and was the site of a old mill with its various buildings which was burnt down in approximately 1896. . Since then it has been a over grown derelict piece of ground which I have tided up but is of no use other than housing.
Two houses could and should be built there so making use of this ground after so many years of disuse .
By using this and other plots similar areas which would fit into existing local areas you would not need to build large housing estates that take up lots of greenbelt and take over existing rural areas

Please indicate which section(s) of the Draft Local Plan you are commenting on (where applicable please clearly state the Policy reference or paragraph number):
Brentwood Gypsy and Travellers policy (policy 7.10)
I strongly object to policy 7.10 for Gyspy and Traveller provision on the following grounds:
(1) Paragraph 7.79 states that the policy is based on allocations specified in the Essex Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Showpeople Accommodation Assessment prepared in July 2014 prior to the new Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (PPTS) published in August 2015. Section 2 of PPTS states that it must be taken into account in the preparation of development plans and this has not been done.
Para 2.45
Little consideration has been given to providing sufficient new schools, health services or the emergency services. Basildon hospital cannot cope with the current population and I understand that there are no plans to provide additional funding or to expand the current facilities. There is real danger to lives now as the hospital cannot cope. A continued population increase and a growing elderly population will put incredible strain on services. GP appointments are currently standing at 10-14 days.
8.48
The C2C line has seen a progressive increase in passengers over the past few years resulting in the disastrous new timetable being implemented. There is talk of providing more trains in 2019 but there are only two lines in/out of London so there is a limit to the capacity.

(1) Infrastructure
The A127, A13 and adjoining roads cannot cope with the traffic now.
Numerous developments have taken place and are in the process of being built in the local area which is seeing an impact on increased traffic, strain on schools and amenities.
(2) Building on Green Belt
All possible options to utilise brownfield land and should be considered before putting forward proposals to utilise the Green Belt.
(3) Pollution
I have not seen any information on the local pollution from vehicles. Studies should be in place to measure the current levels which I would guess exceed permitted European emission levels. An increase in traffic will further exacerbate the issue.
(4) Flood Risk
Development of Dunton Hills and West Horndon will pose a very high risk of flooding especially through its onward effect on the Mardyke River.
Removal of trees/vegetation will reduce the ability of the area to absorb rainfall. The altitude of the land is mostly around 40m. The A127 presents a barrier to drainage systems because it is lower lying land of approx. 20m. Therefore, most of the surface water will have to be drained towards the South and West via the Mardyke tributary and into the Mardyke itself.
The development of the Dunton Hills area would dramatically increase the risk of flooding. The cost to implement the necessary flood defences would be astronomical.
Gypsy pitches
(5) Wrap-up
Councils should be made to build on brownfield and not Green Belt. Once the land is gone it is gone forever. From the National Planning Policy Framework it states 'The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.' I implore you to honour this policy.

See attached.

I object to any proposals to build on Brentwoods Greenbelt. Your proposal is to build on this greenbelt so I object to your proposed Local Development Plan. There is plenty of room for the people of Brentwood so we do not need to build housing or anything else on Greenbelt. I object to the proposed Local Development Plan for Brentwood.

I object to the proposed Brentwood Local Development Plan.
It is absolutely and completely diabolical to think that it is acceptable to ever build on greenbelt land which is what much of this proposal sets out to do. A situation could never ever come into existence that could be considered as 'very special circumstances' (unless we were to find ourselves at war.) Greenbelt land is home to thousands of living, respiring organisms. It is not right to take their homes which will more than likely lead to individual deaths.
As I have seen from my own personal experience after spending the entirety of my schooling in Brentwood-they are already majorly oversubscribed. There are no plans to build a new secondary school.
Also, having been a patient of Highwood Doctors surgery in Brentwood my whole life, I have experienced very long waiting times when being referred to consultants (at least 2 months.) There is no plans to build new hospitals to cope with the increase of the population.
I object to any building on any current greenbelt land in the UK.
Therefore, I object to the proposed Brentwood Local Development Plan.

Having been to the local meeting, read through the plan document, I am writing to place on record my objections to the plans related to Ingatestone etc.
Ingatestone is supposed to be a village made up of a community that cares about its environment, plus many residents are commuters to London and are very pleased to return to a place of tranquility and country air after hours spent in London etc. Your outline plans are taking this away from us and will just turn Ingatestone into a 'feeder' town like Brentwood, which has already been ruined by past planning decisions. You plan to build 170 homes in Mountnessing on 2 sites, 60 houses on the site of the Ingateston Garden Centre (ref 128), 42 houses beside the A12 (ref 079A) at the entry to Ingatestone from Mountnessing, as well as an Industrial Estate (ref 079C) in the same area of this entry to the village, which will have a detrimental effect on the impression of the village atmosphere and reduce the appeal of Ingatestone, as somewhere to live that is different from surrounding towns. This is all extra to the infill plans that are about in Ingatesone for more houses and flats - 2 office buildings have applied to be changed into apartments, giving an extra 9 properties, plus an increase in apartment above shops another 4 at least, The Crown to become 4 apartments or more, 16 houses (ref 042) beside the doctor's surgery and 10 houses (ref 098) planned for Ingleton House, where will the old people be placed if this happens and they lose their homes? All these properties will have a minimum of 1 car each and many of the houses will have 2, including the houses planned for Mountnessing - could be an extra 300 cars, at least, at a stroke within the area- where will they all park when they use facilities in Ingatestone - we have no room now
The public bus services is not reliable or convenient for enough people not to need their cars to get to trains or shops, when needed to either Shenfield or into Ingatestone, especially, as people do not like walking too far when we have weather problems and certainly not back from shops carrying heavy bags etc.
 Industrial Estate:
The idea of this type of development is ridiculous as the one that had permission on the site of the old scrapyard in Mountnessing, beside the roundabout on the A12, never happened despite changes made to the plans, as presumably there was no demand to develop. To move it down to the edge of Ingatesone is madness, as all heavy vehicles and vans and other traffic to and from such an estate would need to travel through Mountnessing, past schools and houses with the risk that many of the vehicle movements will also travel through Ingatestone, which could not cope with these types of vehicles and volumes of extra traffic. Plus at most of the residents in this area work away from the village you will just be bringing more traffic into an area already not suitable for these extra volumes, as well as increasing traffic from all the extra houses planned to no real benefit of local people. As I pointed out in the previous paragraph, a number of offices have applied for a change of use to apartments, thus reducing the appeal of Ingatestone for a commercial use!
 Infrastructure
Why you think we need more houses in this area defeats me as the infrastructure is not there to cope with more people. Starting with sewers and other utilities currently overstretched, the doctor's surgery is already struggling to keep up and would find it hard to cope with many more patients, schools will be overloaded with extra children, shops would lose trade as parking becomes impossible. Trade has already started to go from the shops with the closure of Barclays Bank, which used to be a draw for customers of these shops. The other major problem is the current roads are not built to take account of all this extra traffic plus there is no extra space for parking in Ingatestone. The footpaths in Ingatestone are already much too narrow in places for pedestrians to pass each other, especially older residents using disability vehicles/walking frames etc causing others to step into the road, which could be the cause of accidents with more vehicles movements, especially commercial vans and lorries.
 Dunton New Town
This is the place for you to build more of your homes' target etc. as the A127 will probably have an upgraded link to the M25, when the new Dartford Crossing is built, with the feeder road planned to be via this new link. Another 500 houses built there would take pressure of other areas in the borough like Ingatestone and all the new facilities would presumably be in place to help this new development. This way you would keep many of the problems outlined above in one area, which would be much more cost effective and manageable.
 Green Belt
You mentioned in your planning document that the Green Belt is in place for many reasons but 1 in particular is to prevent "Ribbon development" yet your plan for Brentwood through to Ingatestone goes against the advice. Once the Officers Meadows site in Shenfield is built with some 600 houses planned, there will be houses linked from Brentwood Town Centre through to Ingatestone, again making this area look very much like a suburb of London!! Plus what chance that more of these Shenfield residents decide to drive to Ingatestone - more cars in the village more pressure on parking etc. We lose our village community more and more!
I hope my comments are useful for when you come to consider The Local Plan further and you then give more consideration to the problems in Ingatestone, as well as considering the opportunities to develop more in an area with less issues.

See attached

See attached.

I OBJECT TO THIS PLAN ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS:-

* The proposed site is greenbelt. We should not build on greenbelt. It is an invaluable asset for our future generation and urban sprawl must not be allowed.
* It is not proven that we need housing for this many people (Local) being operative word/name.
* We do not have schools , doctors, hospital facilities to cope.
* Local hospital is on Black Alert most of the time. With no extra funding to be able to cope with this ludicrous development.
* Our local roads are congested already causing both noise and air pollution.
* Our water drainage goes back to Victorian times therefore as much greenbelt as we can keep is advisable to soak up excess water.
* The greenbelt protects London both from flood and acts as a lung for clean air.
* The proposed site has already got a flood problem.
* The original consultation was shamble so is not fit for purpose, consequent re-arrangements regarding Basildon and Brentwood that have been made with out due notification making the outcomes even more erroneous in law. Changing major decisions half way through already flawed process.
* Greenbelt can only be built on in exceptional circumstances. Circumstances regarding over population from another area are not valid.
* The entire demographic will change if we come out of EU and do not take all and sundry from Europe when free movement may be irradiated.
* Road Infrastructure is insufficient, further road building will cause more pollution.
* The A127 is overcrowded and is the only road leading to the east .
* As a public Governor or Basildon hospital I can safely say the hospital is at breaking point and already has major financial problems and over subscription problems.

See attached

1. I acknowledge the challenges the LDP needs to address and the difficulties Brentwood Borough Council faces to deliver all the requirements
* Strategic Housing allocation
o 360 new home per year from 2013
o This amounts to 5500 over a 15-year time frame or 7200 over 20 years
o Brentwood is 89% Green Belt
o Brentwood only has brown field locations for ~2500 houses
o Thus needs to find locations for some 3000 extra houses
o Inevitably some of these will have to be built on land that is currently classed as green belt
o Green belt loss must be kept to an absolute minimum
* Employments needs
* Retail sites

2. I total support for protection of the green belt, especially the area immediately next to the Village of West Horndon. Under no circumstances should this Green Belt be sacrificed to meet housing need. It would be creep and start to join the urban areas of Greater London with Basildon. It would also change the rural character of the existing village beyond recognition.

3. I accept development of the Brown Field Industrial estate but need to find appropriate solutions to the infrastructure issues this creates. These include:
o Safe acceptable road access onto the site - the current entrance is already a hazard. Changing the Industrial estate to mixed residential without a security gate to slow traffic would increase the hazard significantly
o Need to ensure development has SuDs in place
o Schools places
o Doctors/medical facilities
o Mixed development
* some of the more modern industrial units to remain
* Starter homes
* Family homes
* Homes for elderly/disabled residents
o Development that is compatible with the current village style not too dense, 30 homes per ha maximum if possible somewhat less
* Maximum housing density of 30 homes per ha (pro rata down if as probable some of the smaller industrial units remain)

4. I accept with great reluctance the concept that if Green Belt development has to take place as set out in the NPPF section 83, then it should be as separate discreet village developments and not wide spread small incremental additions. They must be big enough to be self-sustainable and generate sufficient CIL &106 money to provide appropriate infrastructure, but not so big as to become small towns. Only the absolute minimum amount of Green Belt should be reclassified in order to prevent further development at some time in the future.

* Dunton Garden Village
o Done properly this is possibly the least harmful option
o Accept the idea of achieving the required level of development by building new villages that are self-sustainable and developed in such a way as to deter further development creep
o Question the size at 2500 - the new West Horndon with the development of the industrial estate will be ~ 1100 to 1200 homes. DHGV should replicate that and not be much bigger, although I might accept slightly more if it could be proved that a larger number was absolutely necessary to generate the required infrastructure
o There needs to be an environmental barrier between DHGV and West Horndon so as to prevent the possibility of developmental creep in the future
o There are a lot infrastructure issues that need to be resolved these include:
* Road access
* Schools - junior & senior
* Medical facilities
* Access to the railway station
* A127 capacity
* C2C rail capacity
o If the DHGV option is progressed, then as per my comments in section 4 above only the absolute minimum of land necessary should be reclassified. In appendix 2 on page 185 site ref 200 is identified as being 237.49ha. This is vastly more land than is required for even the proposed 2500 houses. I strongly object to this whole area being reclassified as that would make further redevelopment and thus urban creep much easier to occur in the future

* A127 capacity vs A12 corridor capacity
o Disagree that the capacity of both the rail and road are greater for the A127 corridor than the A12
o Much of the A12 is already 6 lane and there are plans in place to upgrade all the 4 lanes sections from the M25 to Marks Tey to 6 lanes.
o There are no 6 lane sections on the A127 and plans to upgrade it are only at a very early stage. This would need to be done before more development takes palace.
o The railway from Shenfield station into London as 4 tracks and is currently being upgraded by the Crossrail project.
o The C2C railway from Southend to London Fenchurch Street is only two tracks and expansion west of Upminster would be almost impossible because the tracks run through built/residential areas.
The A12 corridor already clearly has far more capacity than the A127 and plans to upgrade it even further far more advanced.

* To prevent creep, the overriding priority must be to protect the green belt immediately around the village of West Horndon
* Any development that takes place must be preceded or at the very least accompanied by appropriate and necessary infrastructure. Under no circumstance should infrastructure come after development

* All developments must have appropriate levels of affordable housing. Where possible this should be prioritised for Brentwood residents.

* BBC will need to work out how to get/guarantee any rail infrastructure upgrades, these are not part of the same development plan and Network rail have a long history of delay and failure to implement necessary infrastructure improvements.

* I support the concept of the J29 Employment Cluster. It will be particularly good for employment that requires significant HGV activity.
o Need to ensure that there is sufficient public transport access to the site

See attached.

See attached.

I object to building on ANY Green Belt land anywhere in the UK . This land was set aside for our children to be held IN PERPETUITY. We have a duty to ensure it remains so.

It belongs to ALL and not just a few greedy land owners and developers who want to profit.

The governments will have to come up with another idea for housing and over population of the UK.

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.

The number of homes proposed for the area in and around West Horndon is totally disproportionate compared to the total number of homes being proposed by Brentwood Borough Council, and is also much too high for a village currently made up of 650 homes. We are also very close to the borders of Basildon, Thurrock and Havering, and there is a real risk that homes proposed by these councils could also impact our infrastructure, especially as Thurrock has not yet published their LDP.

West Horndon was originally put forward as we have a train station and are close to the A127. During the last two years however, traffic has increased greatly on the A127 (it frequently stops completely in the rush hour) and the trains are now so crowded at West Horndon, that it is difficult to get on a train, let alone get a seat.

Despite this however, I am in favour of 350/400 homes on the area that is now the West Horndon Industrial Estates, as I believe that this Industrial Estate, with the very large lorries that visit it, is no longer appropriate for a residential village.

I am against development of Green Belt land and I believe that the Green Belt around West Horndon is particularly important because of our proximity to Havering and through them, London. I believe that as suggested in the latest LDP the outline of West Horndon should be preserved.

There are flooding issues around this village, which I believe would be exacerbate by a large housing estate, but I would reluctantly agree to a new small village of approximately 600 homes being built on the Timmermans Nursery site by the A127, provided that a buffer zone, preferably a wooded area, was constructed between the new village and West Horndon.

The doctor's surgery is also at capacity now, this issue must also be addressed as a matter of urgency.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.