The A127 can't cope with anymore traffic I sit in traffic every day going to work and coming home it's a nightmare! I paid a lot of money for my house and I don't wish to have price decline so that you can house travellers. People who pay nothing into our government and yet take take take! I am talking from experience as I had to leave my last home due to travellers renting the house opposite me and making my life and other neighbours unbearable! Police reports have been documented outlining numerous offences. Laindon as an area is being regenerated please don't continue to send it downhill.

It is pleasing to read that Green Belt development has been kept to a minimum with great consideration for Brown Field sites as a higher priority. I agree with the Dunton Village expansion as it would develop the community of Horndon and have plenty of scope for future expansion.

STRONGLY OBJECT
The proposed Dunton Hills development is dreadful! It will result in a large loss of green belt land, which is just unacceptable. What about all the wildlife that current live there?? Our planet has already lost half of its wildlife in just the past 40 years and most species are now struggling, all because of human expansion. Do you really not care about adding to this figure? Are you so selfish that you only care about your own species??

Please record my objection to this proposal, as you are aware the Green Belt was put in place for good reason and I believe that we should respect the decision made many years ago. Brentwood has several brownfield sites to fill in that can provide housing for future needs. Please do not concrete over our Green Belt.

I have a number of major concerns with this proposal.

Secondary Schools

Firstly, I am amazed that there could be a proposal to build so many homes with no proposal to build additional schools. That is madness. I live in Langdon Hills where there are currently NO secondary schools. The majority of children from our local primary school attend schools in Brentwood and Billericay. This development will give priority to the new homes for places within the Brentwood schools over Langdon Hills residence, meaning that we will have very little choice. This opportunity has already been eroded by the current building 450 new homes near Fords, Dunton. This is going to mean less places for our children. I am shocked and dismayed that anyone could possibly suggest building that many new homes without a new secondary school. Why is there no account taken of this? Plus, parents are supposed to have choice when it comes to choosing schools. This would remove any choice we have for schools in Basildon and Brentwood as we would have no hope of securing places in those schools. If only 1 in 4 households had only 1 child, this could equate to a huge number of additional school places needed. The whole of Langdon hills was built with no secondary schools and now you are proposing another two developments without a secondary school! Then there is also the primary school issue for this many new homes more schools will be required.

Transport

There is a proposal to remove started trains from Laindon station starting in Dec 2015. This is going to put even more pressure on trains coming through laindon station. As there are only 4 lines going into Fenchurch street, there is not sufficient capacity for the large number of commuters this development would bring.

I am totally against building a new station. We moved to the area due to the links of Langdon Hills into London. This would mean we would have to drive to the station and would be liable to pay the additional parking costs associated with it.

Location

All you have done is split the original proposal into two and think that you will be able to get a similar proposal through. But the proposal has exactly the same faults as the last one - no plans for additional infrastructure, more traveller sights, impact on the environment, flood risk. And on top of this there are plans to add in more roads for the new crossing! This is going to have a major impact on transport!

Gypsy and Travellers Pitches

Whilst I am sure this is well intended, this makes no commercial sense whatsoever. Given the amount of rubbish indicative of such sites, this is going to reduce the demand and therefore, the price of any houses that are built.

Responses to previous consultation

I never received any response to my comments on the last consultation. So you are now wasting even more of people's time to have to make the same objections again. This is clearly a ploy to sneak this through without people objecting.

Housing plan at Dunton Hills.
I just wish to state that the plan for the large housing project would in my opinion be perfectly suitable as the site is adjacent to the A127 for access and also is not too close to existing housing.
Also the industrial area close by could be convenient for local job opportunities.
(Comments originally submitted via Councils Report It system ref: REP/130297/2016)

Very suitable for extra housing in Essex, due to being situated near A127 for access and not being close to other housing areas.

See attached.

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.

Re: Dunton Garden Village Proposed Development vs Medow House
Concerns/Issues
Potential implications to our local environment and its impact on what we thought, and have been repeatedly told, is green belt:
- Affect on our local environment during construction through noise dust, mud and the affect of site traffic on entry and exit to our property, traffic flow interruption impacting on the A127 and A128
Once the Development is completed:
- Damage that impacts on the rural scene, affecting ourselves significantly, the development will only grow
- Pollution through additional traffic, entry and exit to our property will be compromised
- Reduction of privacy and potential safety risk, as we cannot evaluate who or what will be developed near us.
Overall consideration of this proposed development, that goes a long way to fulfill the requirements of additional housing in the Borough, brings us to believe, in principle only, that we do not object.
However, without detailed plans it is unclear at this moment whether the development includes our property/land or whether our property/land is to remain under developed. Hence it is difficult to respond from a personal perspective.
We have been lead to believe that the green belt is non-negotiable, with that in mind we decided to invest time, effort and money into redeveloping our residential property, workshop, approach road and surrounding land with a view to making our future more enjoyable and hopefully recoup our investment in the short or long term. The major frustration being the lack of any plan with not even a scheme and a real possibility of not seeing one until the end of 2016. Without any reassurance of how this development will affect us we will have to finish our renovation project and hope the proposed development is not to the detriment of our property and living space.
We have spoken to a representative of the company acting as a development agent for the major land owner in this development who suggested that there may be development potential on our land, however, this person has not been in touch since. If this were the case we would be happy to accept and realize any potential to sell with development rights. Alternatively, try for these rights ourselves and incorporate our land into the development land.
This could leave us in a compromising situation residing in a property surrounded by a large scale development without any control of what will end up around us.
There could well be a situation where value is taken off this property which after all we have been through would be the last thing we need. On that point we will accept the situation of (as mentioned earlier) our land could be incorporated as part of the development plan and sold with that permission or seeking planning permission on the land that would fall into line with the overall requirement of the proposed Dunton Garden Village.

I wish to add my objection to the LDP as the proposed development in West Horndon is completely disproportionate to development elsewhere in the borough. West Horndon is a rural village surrounded by beautiful countryside, something that should not be destroyed. The proposed development would completely destroy the village character, dramatically increasing the residential size of West Horndon. The road and rail infrastructure is already at capacity and would not cope. Extra traffic would cause more congestion and pollution also affecting the countryside and greenbelt. The A127 corridor is a flood risk area, any development would be at risk.

I believe that to develop both the industrial sites and Dunton Garden Suburb will significantly over develop our villages thus destroying the community.

I write in support of the Dunton Garden Village as this adheres to the requirement 7.36 which requires each development to be "in reach of existing services" and "infrastructure" as there is the space (and suggested additional station on the railway line through the area).
I cannot however see how the proposed area off Doddinghurst Road (page 87 of appendix 2) can possibly fulfil this requirement. Any access points agreed for the site (except filters direct to/from the A12) would lead directly onto the Ongar Road.
Any council member with thoughts of this route fitting the criteria, should look again at the map (and maybe visit the area between 8am and 9.30am and again from 2.30pm onwards!) to see how many areas already feed into the town centre by this one road. (as was seen by the diversions needed during the closures due to the recent subsidence problem).

With NO infrastructure details and not knowing full details of what development will take place if it goes ahead it is difficult to comment.

However, looking at various websites and reading the development plans there are major concerns that need resolving to ensure whole site is Safe and risk Free form the following: -

(a) The local development plans I understand contain a great deal of inaccurate information, so surely the consultation of this site should be suspended/withdrawn and reports redrawn correctly, then new consultation by end of JUNE 2016!
(b) Major Problems:
SOIL &/or WATER CONTAMINATION
(b) FLOODING
(c) SURFACE WATER
(d) GAS EXPLOSION - GAS LEAKS
(e) ROADS - GRIDLOCK (e.g. A127)
MAY MEAN HIGHER INSURANCE PREMIUMS or if any of (a) - (d) happen - NO INSURANCE available for prospective homeowners!
Only once everything has been resolved, 't's crossed and 'i's dotted, should any development be considered at the Dunton Site, with professional reports fully satisfying/resolving all points including infrastructure.
(c) Surely it would be sensible for both councils to draw up a Masterplan to show development proposed now and in the future including all roads (with consent from Essex County Council and other Bio Diversity parties), with full details of
infrastructure besides above point.
Will Basildon Hospital/Schools/Doctor Surgeries/Transport Links etc. be able to cope, especially as I understand no schools until after 2034! The Hospital and doctor surgeries are at a critical point now so how will they be able to cope with additional development and ever dwindling funding to the NHS.
(d) Then would need further public consultation so everyone can make accurate comments on the councils!
Present proposals put forward piecemeal - is this a back door way of getting them through, which will lead to a New Town?

My over-arching objection to the development at Dunton Garden Village is that you are building on Greenbelt land, South of the A127 and you do not need to build on greenbelt to achieve any OAN housing numbers. A comment used by Councils that they must build on the Greenbelt otherwise they will not be able to meet their housing targets has been rejected by the Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles when after his invitation, I met with him Friday 12th March at the Brentwood Constituency Office. Therefore the meeting is a matter of record. Mr Pickles stated that the NPPF was quite unequivocal in this objective. I asked Mr Pickles if I could quote him and he was most emphatic that I could. As Mr Pickles actually wrote parts of the NPPF document I am certain he knows what he is talking about.

Also, a further statement which supports that of Mr Pickles was also made by Department for Communities and Local Government written statement - made on 17th December 2015. "The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and should be approved only in very special circumstances".

Therefore I repeat, Dunton garden Village should be withdrawn otherwise it will be rejected at the time of higher level Inspector scrutiny.

I most strongly object to paragraph 7.10 Gyspy and Traveller provision on the following grounds :-
1. You are making several errors in the allocation of Traveller Pitches, namely you are over allocating on the numbers, in that Dunton Hills Garden Village is identified for future provision with 20 pitches being allocated as part of this provision. Each pitch can accommodate two caravans or chalets to cater for an extended family so 20 pitches could accommodate about 100 travellers. The total need by 2033 is identified as 84 pitches with 23 on identified locations elsewhere. Therefore the size of the traveller site at Dunton Hills Garden Village could be extended to 50 or even 60 pitches by 2033. This far exceeds the government advice on Gypsy and Traveller Sites, which states that 15 pitches is the maximum size of a site that could be considered manageable.
2. Paragraph 7.79 states that the policy is based on an out of date guidance for 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. The Accommodation Assessment and Policy 7.10 must therefore be revised from scratch and will require a new public consultation in line with regulation 18 to be conducted.
3. Paragraph 7.79 states that there is a need for 59 new pitches by 2018 and that planning permission has been granted for 17. This means that provision for another 42 pitches is required by 2018. The only provision identified (paragraph 7.80) is sites for 6 pitches as shown in figure 7.5 and 20 pitches to be allocated within "Dunton Hills Garden Village". Even if this development could be implemented within that timescale it leaves a shortfall of 16 pitches for the first five year pitch provision. The plan must state where these will go. It seems overly optimistic that windfall sites will meet this need before 2018.
4. PPTS section 13 © states that policies must ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis.
The nearest secondary school to any site at Dunton Hills will be in excess of two miles away making it difficult for traveller children to attend. The location should therefore be considered unsuitable
5. PPTS secion 13 (g) states that traveller and gypsy sites must not be located in areas at risk of flooding. Flood Maps published by the environmental agency confirm that Dunton Hills is an area at Risk of Flooding from Surface Water. This is confirmed by frequent areas of standing water seen over much of the land at times of persistent rain. Once again this is therefore not a suitable location for traveller pitches.
6. PPTS section 13 (e) states that the effect of noise and air quality on health must be considered. The A127 is an increasingly busy road producing a great deal of noise and air pollution. Caravans are not well insulated against noise or pollution so once again Dunton Hills is not a suitable location for travellers.
7. PPTS Annex 1 section 1 defines "gypsies and travellers" to mean those of a nomadic habit who may only have ceased to travel temporarily. With such a large concentration of travellers it will be impossible to prevent them from settling permanently. Furthermore, no provision has been made in the form of transit sites for nomadic travellers so they may continue to use unauthorised sites for this purpose.
Policy CP9: Protecting the historic and natural environment and landscape character

I object to building at Dunton Garden Village based on the following :-
1. Will destroy Green Belt Land, including valuable bio-diversity sites.
2. Will destroy local wildlife habitats, especially for protected species. The area nominated in the Consultation has been examined by members of the Essex Wildlife Trust and the eminently qualified Conservation Office Dr Annie Gordon. The membership of RAID have also taken twenty four hour footage of the site (available on the RAID web site) which clearly shows that the site is home for Badgers and Barn Owls to name but two special creatures.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is an impact on ecology. This statement is fully supported by the excellent Objection of Dr Annie Gordon the Conservation Officer of Essex Wildlife Trust.

Policy CP10: Green Belt
1. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Surface Water" is far too extensive to support the provision of te number of homes.
2. The chances of obtaining household insurance is very low, given the extensive flooding in various parts of the country and the ongoing discussion surrounding global warming and weather change.
3. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Rivers and Sea" is far too extensive to support the provision of the number of homes Also this area is prone to flooding and has the Mardyke which is a known flooding hazard.
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
1. Per the very detailed report undertaken jointly by County Councillor Rodney Bass, Cabinet Member for Highways & Transportation Essex County Council and Councillor A Cox Cabinet Member for Public Protection for Waste & Transport Southend Borough Council and produced March 2014 In the excellent report titled A127 Corridor For Growth, it clearly states the immense number of problems today, without adding to it the probable additional 4,000 vehicles which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes.
2. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 is an Old road - originally built 90 years ago - not fit for 21st century - design life exceeded. It cannot handle the vast increase in traffic as it is gridlocked each and every day in morning and evening rush hours.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has too many junctions / side roads / entrances - safety improvements required.
4. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are currently 70,000 + vehicles a day and is over capacity in most places. Note this was produced in March 2014, and the situation has deteriorated since then.
5. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has had lack of maintenance investment, and the asset has deteriorated.
6. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the location of utilities - affects future planning. Meaning it would be difficult, costly, and disruptive to make any significant changes.
7. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are safety concerns - especially lay-bys. An addition 4,000 vehicles would increase the likelihood of accidents and therefore safety issues, and the already overcrowded A127 would have gridlock even more frequently and for elongated periods of time.
8. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is already an negative impact on pollution. The addition of up to 4,000 vehicles would exponentially increase pollution, which flies in the face of the Kyoto Agreement of which the United Kingdom is a fully signed up member.
9. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways (lanes).
10. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is infeasible to add additional highways.
11. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways.
12. The additional homes from the partly developed Ford Dunton Village, which has not yet reached maximum occupancy, has already created a daily gridlock at the A127 / B148 interchange with associated backup of traffic into Laindon / Langdon Hills.
13. By adding the probable 4,000 more vehicles onto already overcrowded A127 the likelihood is that the incidents of accidents will increase significantly. Motorists will become aware of these situations and will make route changes to their daily commute which will see them using the minor roads that are around the A127, thus destroying those environments and adding to pollution levels in those communities.
14. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point in the rush hours and cannot take any more passengers.
15. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point, and there is no ability to expand in terms of additional tracks.

Education Facilities
1. With the CURRENT lack of Secondary School provision in West Basildon, many children are shipped to Secondary Schools north of the A127, including Billericay, Brentwood, Shenfield and Wickford. This already creates many traffic backlogs and with another 2,000 homes generating many children of all ages, this situation would worsen significantly.
2. The provision of Education is under the control of Essex County Council and they have no such plans to increase schools.
3. There is no money allocated to build new schools.


Health Facilities
1. Basildon hospital cannot cope with the additional7,500 residents which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes. It is already overstretched running at full capacity too often, and hospitals should not exceed the safe levels of more than 85% of beds full. Lives will be put at risk. More residents equals more patients equals more times when Basildon Hospital will be rated as Black as it is already ranked as 15 worst in the country.
2. The incidents of ambulances being "parked at Basildon Hospital with A&E being full, will increase. This means that ambulances are not able to dispatch their patients and go about answering emergency calls will increase, thus putting the lives of residents in danger.
3. Provision of surgery facilities is outside of the remit of Local Councils and as such there I no guarantee of any additional surgeries to service the increase of approximately 7,500 residents. I already experience a 5 week wait time to see my GP an excellent Doctor who is overworked. With the additional 7,500 residents (at 3 per household) and what appears to be closest to a recommended average of 1,600 patients per Doctor, would produce the requirement of approximately 5 new GP's using rounded numbers.
4. There is already a shortage of trained / qualified GP's so waiting times for appointments will increase significantly and endanger residents' health.

My over-arching objection to the development at Dunton Garden Village is that you are building on Greenbelt land, South of the A127 and you do not need to build on greenbelt to achieve any OAN housing numbers. A comment used by Councils that they must build on the Greenbelt otherwise they will not be able to meet their housing targets has been rejected by the Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles when after his invitation, I met with him Friday 12th March at the Brentwood Constituency Office. Therefore the meeting is a matter of record. Mr Pickles stated that the NPPF was quite unequivocal in this objective. I asked Mr Pickles if I could quote him and he was most emphatic that I could. As Mr Pickles actually wrote parts of the NPPF document I am certain he knows what he is talking about.

Also, a further statement which supports that of Mr Pickles was also made by Department for Communities and Local Government written statement - made on 17th December 2015. "The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and should be approved only in very special circumstances".

Therefore I repeat, Dunton garden Village should be withdrawn otherwise it will be rejected at the time of higher level Inspector scrutiny.

I most strongly object to paragraph 7.10 Gyspy and Traveller provision on the following grounds :-
1. You are making several errors in the allocation of Traveller Pitches, namely you are over allocating on the numbers, in that Dunton Hills Garden Village is identified for future provision with 20 pitches being allocated as part of this provision. Each pitch can accommodate two caravans or chalets to cater for an extended family so 20 pitches could accommodate about 100 travellers. The total need by 2033 is identified as 84 pitches with 23 on identified locations elsewhere. Therefore the size of the traveller site at Dunton Hills Garden Village could be extended to 50 or even 60 pitches by 2033. This far exceeds the government advice on Gypsy and Traveller Sites, which states that 15 pitches is the maximum size of a site that could be considered manageable.
2. Paragraph 7.79 states that the policy is based on an out of date guidance for 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. The Accommodation Assessment and Policy 7.10 must therefore be revised from scratch and will require a new public consultation in line with regulation 18 to be conducted.
3. Paragraph 7.79 states that there is a need for 59 new pitches by 2018 and that planning permission has been granted for 17. This means that provision for another 42 pitches is required by 2018. The only provision identified (paragraph 7.80) is sites for 6 pitches as shown in figure 7.5 and 20 pitches to be allocated within "Dunton Hills Garden Village". Even if this development could be implemented within that timescale it leaves a shortfall of 16 pitches for the first five year pitch provision. The plan must state where these will go. It seems overly optimistic that windfall sites will meet this need before 2018.
4. PPTS section 13 © states that policies must ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis.
The nearest secondary school to any site at Dunton Hills will be in excess of two miles away making it difficult for traveller children to attend. The location should therefore be considered unsuitable
5. PPTS secion 13 (g) states that traveller and gypsy sites must not be located in areas at risk of flooding. Flood Maps published by the environmental agency confirm that Dunton Hills is an area at Risk of Flooding from Surface Water. This is confirmed by frequent areas of standing water seen over much of the land at times of persistent rain. Once again this is therefore not a suitable location for traveller pitches.
6. PPTS section 13 (e) states that the effect of noise and air quality on health must be considered. The A127 is an increasingly busy road producing a great deal of noise and air pollution. Caravans are not well insulated against noise or pollution so once again Dunton Hills is not a suitable location for travellers.
7. PPTS Annex 1 section 1 defines "gypsies and travellers" to mean those of a nomadic habit who may only have ceased to travel temporarily. With such a large concentration of travellers it will be impossible to prevent them from settling permanently. Furthermore, no provision has been made in the form of transit sites for nomadic travellers so they may continue to use unauthorised sites for this purpose.
Policy CP9: Protecting the historic and natural environment and landscape character

I object to building at Dunton Garden Village based on the following :-
1. Will destroy Green Belt Land, including valuable bio-diversity sites.
2. Will destroy local wildlife habitats, especially for protected species. The area nominated in the Consultation has been examined by members of the Essex Wildlife Trust and the eminently qualified Conservation Office Dr Annie Gordon. The membership of RAID have also taken twenty four hour footage of the site (available on the RAID web site) which clearly shows that the site is home for Badgers and Barn Owls to name but two special creatures.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is an impact on ecology. This statement is fully supported by the excellent Objection of Dr Annie Gordon the Conservation Officer of Essex Wildlife Trust.

Policy CP10: Green Belt
1. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Surface Water" is far too extensive to support the provision of te number of homes.
2. The chances of obtaining household insurance is very low, given the extensive flooding in various parts of the country and the ongoing discussion surrounding global warming and weather change.
3. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Rivers and Sea" is far too extensive to support the provision of the number of homes Also this area is prone to flooding and has the Mardyke which is a known flooding hazard.
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
1. Per the very detailed report undertaken jointly by County Councillor Rodney Bass, Cabinet Member for Highways & Transportation Essex County Council and Councillor A Cox Cabinet Member for Public Protection for Waste & Transport Southend Borough Council and produced March 2014 In the excellent report titled A127 Corridor For Growth, it clearly states the immense number of problems today, without adding to it the probable additional 4,000 vehicles which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes.
2. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 is an Old road - originally built 90 years ago - not fit for 21st century - design life exceeded. It cannot handle the vast increase in traffic as it is gridlocked each and every day in morning and evening rush hours.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has too many junctions / side roads / entrances - safety improvements required.
4. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are currently 70,000 + vehicles a day and is over capacity in most places. Note this was produced in March 2014, and the situation has deteriorated since then.
5. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has had lack of maintenance investment, and the asset has deteriorated.
6. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the location of utilities - affects future planning. Meaning it would be difficult, costly, and disruptive to make any significant changes.
7. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are safety concerns - especially lay-bys. An addition 4,000 vehicles would increase the likelihood of accidents and therefore safety issues, and the already overcrowded A127 would have gridlock even more frequently and for elongated periods of time.
8. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is already an negative impact on pollution. The addition of up to 4,000 vehicles would exponentially increase pollution, which flies in the face of the Kyoto Agreement of which the United Kingdom is a fully signed up member.
9. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways (lanes).
10. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is infeasible to add additional highways.
11. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways.
12. The additional homes from the partly developed Ford Dunton Village, which has not yet reached maximum occupancy, has already created a daily gridlock at the A127 / B148 interchange with associated backup of traffic into Laindon / Langdon Hills.
13. By adding the probable 4,000 more vehicles onto already overcrowded A127 the likelihood is that the incidents of accidents will increase significantly. Motorists will become aware of these situations and will make route changes to their daily commute which will see them using the minor roads that are around the A127, thus destroying those environments and adding to pollution levels in those communities.
14. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point in the rush hours and cannot take any more passengers.
15. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point, and there is no ability to expand in terms of additional tracks.

Education Facilities
1. With the CURRENT lack of Secondary School provision in West Basildon, many children are shipped to Secondary Schools north of the A127, including Billericay, Brentwood, Shenfield and Wickford. This already creates many traffic backlogs and with another 2,000 homes generating many children of all ages, this situation would worsen significantly.
2. The provision of Education is under the control of Essex County Council and they have no such plans to increase schools.
3. There is no money allocated to build new schools.


Health Facilities
1. Basildon hospital cannot cope with the additional7,500 residents which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes. It is already overstretched running at full capacity too often, and hospitals should not exceed the safe levels of more than 85% of beds full. Lives will be put at risk. More residents equals more patients equals more times when Basildon Hospital will be rated as Black as it is already ranked as 15 worst in the country.
2. The incidents of ambulances being "parked at Basildon Hospital with A&E being full, will increase. This means that ambulances are not able to dispatch their patients and go about answering emergency calls will increase, thus putting the lives of residents in danger.
3. Provision of surgery facilities is outside of the remit of Local Councils and as such there I no guarantee of any additional surgeries to service the increase of approximately 7,500 residents. I already experience a 5 week wait time to see my GP an excellent Doctor who is overworked. With the additional 7,500 residents (at 3 per household) and what appears to be closest to a recommended average of 1,600 patients per Doctor, would produce the requirement of approximately 5 new GP's using rounded numbers.
4. There is already a shortage of trained / qualified GP's so waiting times for appointments will increase significantly and endanger residents' health.

My over-arching objection to the development at Dunton Garden Village is that you are building on Greenbelt land, South of the A127 and you do not need to build on greenbelt to achieve any OAN housing numbers. A comment used by Councils that they must build on the Greenbelt otherwise they will not be able to meet their housing targets has been rejected by the Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles when after his invitation, I met with him Friday 12th March at the Brentwood Constituency Office. Therefore the meeting is a matter of record. Mr Pickles stated that the NPPF was quite unequivocal in this objective. I asked Mr Pickles if I could quote him and he was most emphatic that I could. As Mr Pickles actually wrote parts of the NPPF document I am certain he knows what he is talking about.

Also, a further statement which supports that of Mr Pickles was also made by Department for Communities and Local Government written statement - made on 17th December 2015. "The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and should be approved only in very special circumstances".

Therefore I repeat, Dunton garden Village should be withdrawn otherwise it will be rejected at the time of higher level Inspector scrutiny.

I most strongly object to paragraph 7.10 Gyspy and Traveller provision on the following grounds :-
1. You are making several errors in the allocation of Traveller Pitches, namely you are over allocating on the numbers, in that Dunton Hills Garden Village is identified for future provision with 20 pitches being allocated as part of this provision. Each pitch can accommodate two caravans or chalets to cater for an extended family so 20 pitches could accommodate about 100 travellers. The total need by 2033 is identified as 84 pitches with 23 on identified locations elsewhere. Therefore the size of the traveller site at Dunton Hills Garden Village could be extended to 50 or even 60 pitches by 2033. This far exceeds the government advice on Gypsy and Traveller Sites, which states that 15 pitches is the maximum size of a site that could be considered manageable.
2. Paragraph 7.79 states that the policy is based on an out of date guidance for 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. The Accommodation Assessment and Policy 7.10 must therefore be revised from scratch and will require a new public consultation in line with regulation 18 to be conducted.
3. Paragraph 7.79 states that there is a need for 59 new pitches by 2018 and that planning permission has been granted for 17. This means that provision for another 42 pitches is required by 2018. The only provision identified (paragraph 7.80) is sites for 6 pitches as shown in figure 7.5 and 20 pitches to be allocated within "Dunton Hills Garden Village". Even if this development could be implemented within that timescale it leaves a shortfall of 16 pitches for the first five year pitch provision. The plan must state where these will go. It seems overly optimistic that windfall sites will meet this need before 2018.
4. PPTS section 13 © states that policies must ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis.
The nearest secondary school to any site at Dunton Hills will be in excess of two miles away making it difficult for traveller children to attend. The location should therefore be considered unsuitable
5. PPTS secion 13 (g) states that traveller and gypsy sites must not be located in areas at risk of flooding. Flood Maps published by the environmental agency confirm that Dunton Hills is an area at Risk of Flooding from Surface Water. This is confirmed by frequent areas of standing water seen over much of the land at times of persistent rain. Once again this is therefore not a suitable location for traveller pitches.
6. PPTS section 13 (e) states that the effect of noise and air quality on health must be considered. The A127 is an increasingly busy road producing a great deal of noise and air pollution. Caravans are not well insulated against noise or pollution so once again Dunton Hills is not a suitable location for travellers.
7. PPTS Annex 1 section 1 defines "gypsies and travellers" to mean those of a nomadic habit who may only have ceased to travel temporarily. With such a large concentration of travellers it will be impossible to prevent them from settling permanently. Furthermore, no provision has been made in the form of transit sites for nomadic travellers so they may continue to use unauthorised sites for this purpose.
Policy CP9: Protecting the historic and natural environment and landscape character

I object to building at Dunton Garden Village based on the following :-
1. Will destroy Green Belt Land, including valuable bio-diversity sites.
2. Will destroy local wildlife habitats, especially for protected species. The area nominated in the Consultation has been examined by members of the Essex Wildlife Trust and the eminently qualified Conservation Office Dr Annie Gordon. The membership of RAID have also taken twenty four hour footage of the site (available on the RAID web site) which clearly shows that the site is home for Badgers and Barn Owls to name but two special creatures.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is an impact on ecology. This statement is fully supported by the excellent Objection of Dr Annie Gordon the Conservation Officer of Essex Wildlife Trust.

Policy CP10: Green Belt
1. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Surface Water" is far too extensive to support the provision of te number of homes.
2. The chances of obtaining household insurance is very low, given the extensive flooding in various parts of the country and the ongoing discussion surrounding global warming and weather change.
3. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Rivers and Sea" is far too extensive to support the provision of the number of homes Also this area is prone to flooding and has the Mardyke which is a known flooding hazard.
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
1. Per the very detailed report undertaken jointly by County Councillor Rodney Bass, Cabinet Member for Highways & Transportation Essex County Council and Councillor A Cox Cabinet Member for Public Protection for Waste & Transport Southend Borough Council and produced March 2014 In the excellent report titled A127 Corridor For Growth, it clearly states the immense number of problems today, without adding to it the probable additional 4,000 vehicles which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes.
2. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 is an Old road - originally built 90 years ago - not fit for 21st century - design life exceeded. It cannot handle the vast increase in traffic as it is gridlocked each and every day in morning and evening rush hours.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has too many junctions / side roads / entrances - safety improvements required.
4. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are currently 70,000 + vehicles a day and is over capacity in most places. Note this was produced in March 2014, and the situation has deteriorated since then.
5. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has had lack of maintenance investment, and the asset has deteriorated.
6. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the location of utilities - affects future planning. Meaning it would be difficult, costly, and disruptive to make any significant changes.
7. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are safety concerns - especially lay-bys. An addition 4,000 vehicles would increase the likelihood of accidents and therefore safety issues, and the already overcrowded A127 would have gridlock even more frequently and for elongated periods of time.
8. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is already an negative impact on pollution. The addition of up to 4,000 vehicles would exponentially increase pollution, which flies in the face of the Kyoto Agreement of which the United Kingdom is a fully signed up member.
9. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways (lanes).
10. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is infeasible to add additional highways.
11. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways.
12. The additional homes from the partly developed Ford Dunton Village, which has not yet reached maximum occupancy, has already created a daily gridlock at the A127 / B148 interchange with associated backup of traffic into Laindon / Langdon Hills.
13. By adding the probable 4,000 more vehicles onto already overcrowded A127 the likelihood is that the incidents of accidents will increase significantly. Motorists will become aware of these situations and will make route changes to their daily commute which will see them using the minor roads that are around the A127, thus destroying those environments and adding to pollution levels in those communities.
14. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point in the rush hours and cannot take any more passengers.
15. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point, and there is no ability to expand in terms of additional tracks.

Education Facilities
1. With the CURRENT lack of Secondary School provision in West Basildon, many children are shipped to Secondary Schools north of the A127, including Billericay, Brentwood, Shenfield and Wickford. This already creates many traffic backlogs and with another 2,000 homes generating many children of all ages, this situation would worsen significantly.
2. The provision of Education is under the control of Essex County Council and they have no such plans to increase schools.
3. There is no money allocated to build new schools.


Health Facilities
1. Basildon hospital cannot cope with the additional7,500 residents which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes. It is already overstretched running at full capacity too often, and hospitals should not exceed the safe levels of more than 85% of beds full. Lives will be put at risk. More residents equals more patients equals more times when Basildon Hospital will be rated as Black as it is already ranked as 15 worst in the country.
2. The incidents of ambulances being "parked at Basildon Hospital with A&E being full, will increase. This means that ambulances are not able to dispatch their patients and go about answering emergency calls will increase, thus putting the lives of residents in danger.
3. Provision of surgery facilities is outside of the remit of Local Councils and as such there I no guarantee of any additional surgeries to service the increase of approximately 7,500 residents. I already experience a 5 week wait time to see my GP an excellent Doctor who is overworked. With the additional 7,500 residents (at 3 per household) and what appears to be closest to a recommended average of 1,600 patients per Doctor, would produce the requirement of approximately 5 new GP's using rounded numbers.
4. There is already a shortage of trained / qualified GP's so waiting times for appointments will increase significantly and endanger residents' health.

My over-arching objection to the development at Dunton Garden Village is that you are building on Greenbelt land, South of the A127 and you do not need to build on greenbelt to achieve any OAN housing numbers. A comment used by Councils that they must build on the Greenbelt otherwise they will not be able to meet their housing targets has been rejected by the Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles when after his invitation, I met with him Friday 12th March at the Brentwood Constituency Office. Therefore the meeting is a matter of record. Mr Pickles stated that the NPPF was quite unequivocal in this objective. I asked Mr Pickles if I could quote him and he was most emphatic that I could. As Mr Pickles actually wrote parts of the NPPF document I am certain he knows what he is talking about.

Also, a further statement which supports that of Mr Pickles was also made by Department for Communities and Local Government written statement - made on 17th December 2015. "The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and should be approved only in very special circumstances".

Therefore I repeat, Dunton garden Village should be withdrawn otherwise it will be rejected at the time of higher level Inspector scrutiny.

I most strongly object to paragraph 7.10 Gyspy and Traveller provision on the following grounds :-
1. You are making several errors in the allocation of Traveller Pitches, namely you are over allocating on the numbers, in that Dunton Hills Garden Village is identified for future provision with 20 pitches being allocated as part of this provision. Each pitch can accommodate two caravans or chalets to cater for an extended family so 20 pitches could accommodate about 100 travellers. The total need by 2033 is identified as 84 pitches with 23 on identified locations elsewhere. Therefore the size of the traveller site at Dunton Hills Garden Village could be extended to 50 or even 60 pitches by 2033. This far exceeds the government advice on Gypsy and Traveller Sites, which states that 15 pitches is the maximum size of a site that could be considered manageable.
2. Paragraph 7.79 states that the policy is based on an out of date guidance for 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. The Accommodation Assessment and Policy 7.10 must therefore be revised from scratch and will require a new public consultation in line with regulation 18 to be conducted.
3. Paragraph 7.79 states that there is a need for 59 new pitches by 2018 and that planning permission has been granted for 17. This means that provision for another 42 pitches is required by 2018. The only provision identified (paragraph 7.80) is sites for 6 pitches as shown in figure 7.5 and 20 pitches to be allocated within "Dunton Hills Garden Village". Even if this development could be implemented within that timescale it leaves a shortfall of 16 pitches for the first five year pitch provision. The plan must state where these will go. It seems overly optimistic that windfall sites will meet this need before 2018.
4. PPTS section 13 © states that policies must ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis.
The nearest secondary school to any site at Dunton Hills will be in excess of two miles away making it difficult for traveller children to attend. The location should therefore be considered unsuitable
5. PPTS secion 13 (g) states that traveller and gypsy sites must not be located in areas at risk of flooding. Flood Maps published by the environmental agency confirm that Dunton Hills is an area at Risk of Flooding from Surface Water. This is confirmed by frequent areas of standing water seen over much of the land at times of persistent rain. Once again this is therefore not a suitable location for traveller pitches.
6. PPTS section 13 (e) states that the effect of noise and air quality on health must be considered. The A127 is an increasingly busy road producing a great deal of noise and air pollution. Caravans are not well insulated against noise or pollution so once again Dunton Hills is not a suitable location for travellers.
7. PPTS Annex 1 section 1 defines "gypsies and travellers" to mean those of a nomadic habit who may only have ceased to travel temporarily. With such a large concentration of travellers it will be impossible to prevent them from settling permanently. Furthermore, no provision has been made in the form of transit sites for nomadic travellers so they may continue to use unauthorised sites for this purpose.
Policy CP9: Protecting the historic and natural environment and landscape character

I object to building at Dunton Garden Village based on the following :-
1. Will destroy Green Belt Land, including valuable bio-diversity sites.
2. Will destroy local wildlife habitats, especially for protected species. The area nominated in the Consultation has been examined by members of the Essex Wildlife Trust and the eminently qualified Conservation Office Dr Annie Gordon. The membership of RAID have also taken twenty four hour footage of the site (available on the RAID web site) which clearly shows that the site is home for Badgers and Barn Owls to name but two special creatures.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is an impact on ecology. This statement is fully supported by the excellent Objection of Dr Annie Gordon the Conservation Officer of Essex Wildlife Trust.

Policy CP10: Green Belt
1. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Surface Water" is far too extensive to support the provision of te number of homes.
2. The chances of obtaining household insurance is very low, given the extensive flooding in various parts of the country and the ongoing discussion surrounding global warming and weather change.
3. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Rivers and Sea" is far too extensive to support the provision of the number of homes Also this area is prone to flooding and has the Mardyke which is a known flooding hazard.
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
1. Per the very detailed report undertaken jointly by County Councillor Rodney Bass, Cabinet Member for Highways & Transportation Essex County Council and Councillor A Cox Cabinet Member for Public Protection for Waste & Transport Southend Borough Council and produced March 2014 In the excellent report titled A127 Corridor For Growth, it clearly states the immense number of problems today, without adding to it the probable additional 4,000 vehicles which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes.
2. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 is an Old road - originally built 90 years ago - not fit for 21st century - design life exceeded. It cannot handle the vast increase in traffic as it is gridlocked each and every day in morning and evening rush hours.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has too many junctions / side roads / entrances - safety improvements required.
4. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are currently 70,000 + vehicles a day and is over capacity in most places. Note this was produced in March 2014, and the situation has deteriorated since then.
5. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has had lack of maintenance investment, and the asset has deteriorated.
6. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the location of utilities - affects future planning. Meaning it would be difficult, costly, and disruptive to make any significant changes.
7. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are safety concerns - especially lay-bys. An addition 4,000 vehicles would increase the likelihood of accidents and therefore safety issues, and the already overcrowded A127 would have gridlock even more frequently and for elongated periods of time.
8. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is already an negative impact on pollution. The addition of up to 4,000 vehicles would exponentially increase pollution, which flies in the face of the Kyoto Agreement of which the United Kingdom is a fully signed up member.
9. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways (lanes).
10. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is infeasible to add additional highways.
11. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways.
12. The additional homes from the partly developed Ford Dunton Village, which has not yet reached maximum occupancy, has already created a daily gridlock at the A127 / B148 interchange with associated backup of traffic into Laindon / Langdon Hills.
13. By adding the probable 4,000 more vehicles onto already overcrowded A127 the likelihood is that the incidents of accidents will increase significantly. Motorists will become aware of these situations and will make route changes to their daily commute which will see them using the minor roads that are around the A127, thus destroying those environments and adding to pollution levels in those communities.
14. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point in the rush hours and cannot take any more passengers.
15. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point, and there is no ability to expand in terms of additional tracks.

Education Facilities
1. With the CURRENT lack of Secondary School provision in West Basildon, many children are shipped to Secondary Schools north of the A127, including Billericay, Brentwood, Shenfield and Wickford. This already creates many traffic backlogs and with another 2,000 homes generating many children of all ages, this situation would worsen significantly.
2. The provision of Education is under the control of Essex County Council and they have no such plans to increase schools.
3. There is no money allocated to build new schools.


Health Facilities
1. Basildon hospital cannot cope with the additional7,500 residents which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes. It is already overstretched running at full capacity too often, and hospitals should not exceed the safe levels of more than 85% of beds full. Lives will be put at risk. More residents equals more patients equals more times when Basildon Hospital will be rated as Black as it is already ranked as 15 worst in the country.
2. The incidents of ambulances being "parked at Basildon Hospital with A&E being full, will increase. This means that ambulances are not able to dispatch their patients and go about answering emergency calls will increase, thus putting the lives of residents in danger.
3. Provision of surgery facilities is outside of the remit of Local Councils and as such there I no guarantee of any additional surgeries to service the increase of approximately 7,500 residents. I already experience a 5 week wait time to see my GP an excellent Doctor who is overworked. With the additional 7,500 residents (at 3 per household) and what appears to be closest to a recommended average of 1,600 patients per Doctor, would produce the requirement of approximately 5 new GP's using rounded numbers.
4. There is already a shortage of trained / qualified GP's so waiting times for appointments will increase significantly and endanger residents' health.

My over-arching objection to the development at Dunton Garden Village is that you are building on Greenbelt land, South of the A127 and you do not need to build on greenbelt to achieve any OAN housing numbers. A comment used by Councils that they must build on the Greenbelt otherwise they will not be able to meet their housing targets has been rejected by the Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles when after his invitation, I met with him Friday 12th March at the Brentwood Constituency Office. Therefore the meeting is a matter of record. Mr Pickles stated that the NPPF was quite unequivocal in this objective. I asked Mr Pickles if I could quote him and he was most emphatic that I could. As Mr Pickles actually wrote parts of the NPPF document I am certain he knows what he is talking about.

Also, a further statement which supports that of Mr Pickles was also made by Department for Communities and Local Government written statement - made on 17th December 2015. "The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and should be approved only in very special circumstances".

Therefore I repeat, Dunton garden Village should be withdrawn otherwise it will be rejected at the time of higher level Inspector scrutiny.

I most strongly object to paragraph 7.10 Gyspy and Traveller provision on the following grounds :-
1. You are making several errors in the allocation of Traveller Pitches, namely you are over allocating on the numbers, in that Dunton Hills Garden Village is identified for future provision with 20 pitches being allocated as part of this provision. Each pitch can accommodate two caravans or chalets to cater for an extended family so 20 pitches could accommodate about 100 travellers. The total need by 2033 is identified as 84 pitches with 23 on identified locations elsewhere. Therefore the size of the traveller site at Dunton Hills Garden Village could be extended to 50 or even 60 pitches by 2033. This far exceeds the government advice on Gypsy and Traveller Sites, which states that 15 pitches is the maximum size of a site that could be considered manageable.
2. Paragraph 7.79 states that the policy is based on an out of date guidance for 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. The Accommodation Assessment and Policy 7.10 must therefore be revised from scratch and will require a new public consultation in line with regulation 18 to be conducted.
3. Paragraph 7.79 states that there is a need for 59 new pitches by 2018 and that planning permission has been granted for 17. This means that provision for another 42 pitches is required by 2018. The only provision identified (paragraph 7.80) is sites for 6 pitches as shown in figure 7.5 and 20 pitches to be allocated within "Dunton Hills Garden Village". Even if this development could be implemented within that timescale it leaves a shortfall of 16 pitches for the first five year pitch provision. The plan must state where these will go. It seems overly optimistic that windfall sites will meet this need before 2018.
4. PPTS section 13 © states that policies must ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis.
The nearest secondary school to any site at Dunton Hills will be in excess of two miles away making it difficult for traveller children to attend. The location should therefore be considered unsuitable
5. PPTS secion 13 (g) states that traveller and gypsy sites must not be located in areas at risk of flooding. Flood Maps published by the environmental agency confirm that Dunton Hills is an area at Risk of Flooding from Surface Water. This is confirmed by frequent areas of standing water seen over much of the land at times of persistent rain. Once again this is therefore not a suitable location for traveller pitches.
6. PPTS section 13 (e) states that the effect of noise and air quality on health must be considered. The A127 is an increasingly busy road producing a great deal of noise and air pollution. Caravans are not well insulated against noise or pollution so once again Dunton Hills is not a suitable location for travellers.
7. PPTS Annex 1 section 1 defines "gypsies and travellers" to mean those of a nomadic habit who may only have ceased to travel temporarily. With such a large concentration of travellers it will be impossible to prevent them from settling permanently. Furthermore, no provision has been made in the form of transit sites for nomadic travellers so they may continue to use unauthorised sites for this purpose.
Policy CP9: Protecting the historic and natural environment and landscape character

I object to building at Dunton Garden Village based on the following :-
1. Will destroy Green Belt Land, including valuable bio-diversity sites.
2. Will destroy local wildlife habitats, especially for protected species. The area nominated in the Consultation has been examined by members of the Essex Wildlife Trust and the eminently qualified Conservation Office Dr Annie Gordon. The membership of RAID have also taken twenty four hour footage of the site (available on the RAID web site) which clearly shows that the site is home for Badgers and Barn Owls to name but two special creatures.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is an impact on ecology. This statement is fully supported by the excellent Objection of Dr Annie Gordon the Conservation Officer of Essex Wildlife Trust.

Policy CP10: Green Belt
1. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Surface Water" is far too extensive to support the provision of te number of homes.
2. The chances of obtaining household insurance is very low, given the extensive flooding in various parts of the country and the ongoing discussion surrounding global warming and weather change.
3. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Rivers and Sea" is far too extensive to support the provision of the number of homes Also this area is prone to flooding and has the Mardyke which is a known flooding hazard.
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
1. Per the very detailed report undertaken jointly by County Councillor Rodney Bass, Cabinet Member for Highways & Transportation Essex County Council and Councillor A Cox Cabinet Member for Public Protection for Waste & Transport Southend Borough Council and produced March 2014 In the excellent report titled A127 Corridor For Growth, it clearly states the immense number of problems today, without adding to it the probable additional 4,000 vehicles which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes.
2. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 is an Old road - originally built 90 years ago - not fit for 21st century - design life exceeded. It cannot handle the vast increase in traffic as it is gridlocked each and every day in morning and evening rush hours.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has too many junctions / side roads / entrances - safety improvements required.
4. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are currently 70,000 + vehicles a day and is over capacity in most places. Note this was produced in March 2014, and the situation has deteriorated since then.
5. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has had lack of maintenance investment, and the asset has deteriorated.
6. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the location of utilities - affects future planning. Meaning it would be difficult, costly, and disruptive to make any significant changes.
7. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are safety concerns - especially lay-bys. An addition 4,000 vehicles would increase the likelihood of accidents and therefore safety issues, and the already overcrowded A127 would have gridlock even more frequently and for elongated periods of time.
8. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is already an negative impact on pollution. The addition of up to 4,000 vehicles would exponentially increase pollution, which flies in the face of the Kyoto Agreement of which the United Kingdom is a fully signed up member.
9. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways (lanes).
10. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is infeasible to add additional highways.
11. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways.
12. The additional homes from the partly developed Ford Dunton Village, which has not yet reached maximum occupancy, has already created a daily gridlock at the A127 / B148 interchange with associated backup of traffic into Laindon / Langdon Hills.
13. By adding the probable 4,000 more vehicles onto already overcrowded A127 the likelihood is that the incidents of accidents will increase significantly. Motorists will become aware of these situations and will make route changes to their daily commute which will see them using the minor roads that are around the A127, thus destroying those environments and adding to pollution levels in those communities.
14. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point in the rush hours and cannot take any more passengers.
15. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point, and there is no ability to expand in terms of additional tracks.

Education Facilities
1. With the CURRENT lack of Secondary School provision in West Basildon, many children are shipped to Secondary Schools north of the A127, including Billericay, Brentwood, Shenfield and Wickford. This already creates many traffic backlogs and with another 2,000 homes generating many children of all ages, this situation would worsen significantly.
2. The provision of Education is under the control of Essex County Council and they have no such plans to increase schools.
3. There is no money allocated to build new schools.


Health Facilities
1. Basildon hospital cannot cope with the additional7,500 residents which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes. It is already overstretched running at full capacity too often, and hospitals should not exceed the safe levels of more than 85% of beds full. Lives will be put at risk. More residents equals more patients equals more times when Basildon Hospital will be rated as Black as it is already ranked as 15 worst in the country.
2. The incidents of ambulances being "parked at Basildon Hospital with A&E being full, will increase. This means that ambulances are not able to dispatch their patients and go about answering emergency calls will increase, thus putting the lives of residents in danger.
3. Provision of surgery facilities is outside of the remit of Local Councils and as such there I no guarantee of any additional surgeries to service the increase of approximately 7,500 residents. I already experience a 5 week wait time to see my GP an excellent Doctor who is overworked. With the additional 7,500 residents (at 3 per household) and what appears to be closest to a recommended average of 1,600 patients per Doctor, would produce the requirement of approximately 5 new GP's using rounded numbers.
4. There is already a shortage of trained / qualified GP's so waiting times for appointments will increase significantly and endanger residents' health.

My over-arching objection to the development at Dunton Garden Village is that you are building on Greenbelt land, South of the A127 and you do not need to build on greenbelt to achieve any OAN housing numbers. A comment used by Councils that they must build on the Greenbelt otherwise they will not be able to meet their housing targets has been rejected by the Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles when after his invitation, I met with him Friday 12th March at the Brentwood Constituency Office. Therefore the meeting is a matter of record. Mr Pickles stated that the NPPF was quite unequivocal in this objective. I asked Mr Pickles if I could quote him and he was most emphatic that I could. As Mr Pickles actually wrote parts of the NPPF document I am certain he knows what he is talking about.

Also, a further statement which supports that of Mr Pickles was also made by Department for Communities and Local Government written statement - made on 17th December 2015. "The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and should be approved only in very special circumstances".

Therefore I repeat, Dunton garden Village should be withdrawn otherwise it will be rejected at the time of higher level Inspector scrutiny.

I most strongly object to paragraph 7.10 Gyspy and Traveller provision on the following grounds :-
1. You are making several errors in the allocation of Traveller Pitches, namely you are over allocating on the numbers, in that Dunton Hills Garden Village is identified for future provision with 20 pitches being allocated as part of this provision. Each pitch can accommodate two caravans or chalets to cater for an extended family so 20 pitches could accommodate about 100 travellers. The total need by 2033 is identified as 84 pitches with 23 on identified locations elsewhere. Therefore the size of the traveller site at Dunton Hills Garden Village could be extended to 50 or even 60 pitches by 2033. This far exceeds the government advice on Gypsy and Traveller Sites, which states that 15 pitches is the maximum size of a site that could be considered manageable.
2. Paragraph 7.79 states that the policy is based on an out of date guidance for 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. The Accommodation Assessment and Policy 7.10 must therefore be revised from scratch and will require a new public consultation in line with regulation 18 to be conducted.
3. Paragraph 7.79 states that there is a need for 59 new pitches by 2018 and that planning permission has been granted for 17. This means that provision for another 42 pitches is required by 2018. The only provision identified (paragraph 7.80) is sites for 6 pitches as shown in figure 7.5 and 20 pitches to be allocated within "Dunton Hills Garden Village". Even if this development could be implemented within that timescale it leaves a shortfall of 16 pitches for the first five year pitch provision. The plan must state where these will go. It seems overly optimistic that windfall sites will meet this need before 2018.
4. PPTS section 13 © states that policies must ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis.
The nearest secondary school to any site at Dunton Hills will be in excess of two miles away making it difficult for traveller children to attend. The location should therefore be considered unsuitable
5. PPTS secion 13 (g) states that traveller and gypsy sites must not be located in areas at risk of flooding. Flood Maps published by the environmental agency confirm that Dunton Hills is an area at Risk of Flooding from Surface Water. This is confirmed by frequent areas of standing water seen over much of the land at times of persistent rain. Once again this is therefore not a suitable location for traveller pitches.
6. PPTS section 13 (e) states that the effect of noise and air quality on health must be considered. The A127 is an increasingly busy road producing a great deal of noise and air pollution. Caravans are not well insulated against noise or pollution so once again Dunton Hills is not a suitable location for travellers.
7. PPTS Annex 1 section 1 defines "gypsies and travellers" to mean those of a nomadic habit who may only have ceased to travel temporarily. With such a large concentration of travellers it will be impossible to prevent them from settling permanently. Furthermore, no provision has been made in the form of transit sites for nomadic travellers so they may continue to use unauthorised sites for this purpose.
Policy CP9: Protecting the historic and natural environment and landscape character

I object to building at Dunton Garden Village based on the following :-
1. Will destroy Green Belt Land, including valuable bio-diversity sites.
2. Will destroy local wildlife habitats, especially for protected species. The area nominated in the Consultation has been examined by members of the Essex Wildlife Trust and the eminently qualified Conservation Office Dr Annie Gordon. The membership of RAID have also taken twenty four hour footage of the site (available on the RAID web site) which clearly shows that the site is home for Badgers and Barn Owls to name but two special creatures.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is an impact on ecology. This statement is fully supported by the excellent Objection of Dr Annie Gordon the Conservation Officer of Essex Wildlife Trust.

Policy CP10: Green Belt
1. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Surface Water" is far too extensive to support the provision of te number of homes.
2. The chances of obtaining household insurance is very low, given the extensive flooding in various parts of the country and the ongoing discussion surrounding global warming and weather change.
3. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Rivers and Sea" is far too extensive to support the provision of the number of homes Also this area is prone to flooding and has the Mardyke which is a known flooding hazard.
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
1. Per the very detailed report undertaken jointly by County Councillor Rodney Bass, Cabinet Member for Highways & Transportation Essex County Council and Councillor A Cox Cabinet Member for Public Protection for Waste & Transport Southend Borough Council and produced March 2014 In the excellent report titled A127 Corridor For Growth, it clearly states the immense number of problems today, without adding to it the probable additional 4,000 vehicles which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes.
2. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 is an Old road - originally built 90 years ago - not fit for 21st century - design life exceeded. It cannot handle the vast increase in traffic as it is gridlocked each and every day in morning and evening rush hours.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has too many junctions / side roads / entrances - safety improvements required.
4. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are currently 70,000 + vehicles a day and is over capacity in most places. Note this was produced in March 2014, and the situation has deteriorated since then.
5. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has had lack of maintenance investment, and the asset has deteriorated.
6. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the location of utilities - affects future planning. Meaning it would be difficult, costly, and disruptive to make any significant changes.
7. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are safety concerns - especially lay-bys. An addition 4,000 vehicles would increase the likelihood of accidents and therefore safety issues, and the already overcrowded A127 would have gridlock even more frequently and for elongated periods of time.
8. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is already an negative impact on pollution. The addition of up to 4,000 vehicles would exponentially increase pollution, which flies in the face of the Kyoto Agreement of which the United Kingdom is a fully signed up member.
9. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways (lanes).
10. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is infeasible to add additional highways.
11. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways.
12. The additional homes from the partly developed Ford Dunton Village, which has not yet reached maximum occupancy, has already created a daily gridlock at the A127 / B148 interchange with associated backup of traffic into Laindon / Langdon Hills.
13. By adding the probable 4,000 more vehicles onto already overcrowded A127 the likelihood is that the incidents of accidents will increase significantly. Motorists will become aware of these situations and will make route changes to their daily commute which will see them using the minor roads that are around the A127, thus destroying those environments and adding to pollution levels in those communities.
14. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point in the rush hours and cannot take any more passengers.
15. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point, and there is no ability to expand in terms of additional tracks.

Education Facilities
1. With the CURRENT lack of Secondary School provision in West Basildon, many children are shipped to Secondary Schools north of the A127, including Billericay, Brentwood, Shenfield and Wickford. This already creates many traffic backlogs and with another 2,000 homes generating many children of all ages, this situation would worsen significantly.
2. The provision of Education is under the control of Essex County Council and they have no such plans to increase schools.
3. There is no money allocated to build new schools.


Health Facilities
1. Basildon hospital cannot cope with the additional7,500 residents which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes. It is already overstretched running at full capacity too often, and hospitals should not exceed the safe levels of more than 85% of beds full. Lives will be put at risk. More residents equals more patients equals more times when Basildon Hospital will be rated as Black as it is already ranked as 15 worst in the country.
2. The incidents of ambulances being "parked at Basildon Hospital with A&E being full, will increase. This means that ambulances are not able to dispatch their patients and go about answering emergency calls will increase, thus putting the lives of residents in danger.
3. Provision of surgery facilities is outside of the remit of Local Councils and as such there I no guarantee of any additional surgeries to service the increase of approximately 7,500 residents. I already experience a 5 week wait time to see my GP an excellent Doctor who is overworked. With the additional 7,500 residents (at 3 per household) and what appears to be closest to a recommended average of 1,600 patients per Doctor, would produce the requirement of approximately 5 new GP's using rounded numbers.
4. There is already a shortage of trained / qualified GP's so waiting times for appointments will increase significantly and endanger residents' health.

My over-arching objection to the development at Dunton Garden Village is that you are building on Greenbelt land, South of the A127 and you do not need to build on greenbelt to achieve any OAN housing numbers. A comment used by Councils that they must build on the Greenbelt otherwise they will not be able to meet their housing targets has been rejected by the Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles when after his invitation, I met with him Friday 12th March at the Brentwood Constituency Office. Therefore the meeting is a matter of record. Mr Pickles stated that the NPPF was quite unequivocal in this objective. I asked Mr Pickles if I could quote him and he was most emphatic that I could. As Mr Pickles actually wrote parts of the NPPF document I am certain he knows what he is talking about.

Also, a further statement which supports that of Mr Pickles was also made by Department for Communities and Local Government written statement - made on 17th December 2015. "The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and should be approved only in very special circumstances".

Therefore I repeat, Dunton garden Village should be withdrawn otherwise it will be rejected at the time of higher level Inspector scrutiny.

I most strongly object to paragraph 7.10 Gyspy and Traveller provision on the following grounds :-
1. You are making several errors in the allocation of Traveller Pitches, namely you are over allocating on the numbers, in that Dunton Hills Garden Village is identified for future provision with 20 pitches being allocated as part of this provision. Each pitch can accommodate two caravans or chalets to cater for an extended family so 20 pitches could accommodate about 100 travellers. The total need by 2033 is identified as 84 pitches with 23 on identified locations elsewhere. Therefore the size of the traveller site at Dunton Hills Garden Village could be extended to 50 or even 60 pitches by 2033. This far exceeds the government advice on Gypsy and Traveller Sites, which states that 15 pitches is the maximum size of a site that could be considered manageable.
2. Paragraph 7.79 states that the policy is based on an out of date guidance for 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. The Accommodation Assessment and Policy 7.10 must therefore be revised from scratch and will require a new public consultation in line with regulation 18 to be conducted.
3. Paragraph 7.79 states that there is a need for 59 new pitches by 2018 and that planning permission has been granted for 17. This means that provision for another 42 pitches is required by 2018. The only provision identified (paragraph 7.80) is sites for 6 pitches as shown in figure 7.5 and 20 pitches to be allocated within "Dunton Hills Garden Village". Even if this development could be implemented within that timescale it leaves a shortfall of 16 pitches for the first five year pitch provision. The plan must state where these will go. It seems overly optimistic that windfall sites will meet this need before 2018.
4. PPTS section 13 © states that policies must ensure that children can attend school on a regular basis.
The nearest secondary school to any site at Dunton Hills will be in excess of two miles away making it difficult for traveller children to attend. The location should therefore be considered unsuitable
5. PPTS secion 13 (g) states that traveller and gypsy sites must not be located in areas at risk of flooding. Flood Maps published by the environmental agency confirm that Dunton Hills is an area at Risk of Flooding from Surface Water. This is confirmed by frequent areas of standing water seen over much of the land at times of persistent rain. Once again this is therefore not a suitable location for traveller pitches.
6. PPTS section 13 (e) states that the effect of noise and air quality on health must be considered. The A127 is an increasingly busy road producing a great deal of noise and air pollution. Caravans are not well insulated against noise or pollution so once again Dunton Hills is not a suitable location for travellers.
7. PPTS Annex 1 section 1 defines "gypsies and travellers" to mean those of a nomadic habit who may only have ceased to travel temporarily. With such a large concentration of travellers it will be impossible to prevent them from settling permanently. Furthermore, no provision has been made in the form of transit sites for nomadic travellers so they may continue to use unauthorised sites for this purpose.
Policy CP9: Protecting the historic and natural environment and landscape character

I object to building at Dunton Garden Village based on the following :-
1. Will destroy Green Belt Land, including valuable bio-diversity sites.
2. Will destroy local wildlife habitats, especially for protected species. The area nominated in the Consultation has been examined by members of the Essex Wildlife Trust and the eminently qualified Conservation Office Dr Annie Gordon. The membership of RAID have also taken twenty four hour footage of the site (available on the RAID web site) which clearly shows that the site is home for Badgers and Barn Owls to name but two special creatures.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is an impact on ecology. This statement is fully supported by the excellent Objection of Dr Annie Gordon the Conservation Officer of Essex Wildlife Trust.

Policy CP10: Green Belt
1. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Surface Water" is far too extensive to support the provision of te number of homes.
2. The chances of obtaining household insurance is very low, given the extensive flooding in various parts of the country and the ongoing discussion surrounding global warming and weather change.
3. The risk of surface water flooding according to the Environment Agency report and map "Risk of Flooding From Rivers and Sea" is far too extensive to support the provision of the number of homes Also this area is prone to flooding and has the Mardyke which is a known flooding hazard.
Policy CP13: Sustainable Transport
1. Per the very detailed report undertaken jointly by County Councillor Rodney Bass, Cabinet Member for Highways & Transportation Essex County Council and Councillor A Cox Cabinet Member for Public Protection for Waste & Transport Southend Borough Council and produced March 2014 In the excellent report titled A127 Corridor For Growth, it clearly states the immense number of problems today, without adding to it the probable additional 4,000 vehicles which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes.
2. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 is an Old road - originally built 90 years ago - not fit for 21st century - design life exceeded. It cannot handle the vast increase in traffic as it is gridlocked each and every day in morning and evening rush hours.
3. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has too many junctions / side roads / entrances - safety improvements required.
4. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are currently 70,000 + vehicles a day and is over capacity in most places. Note this was produced in March 2014, and the situation has deteriorated since then.
5. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the A127 has had lack of maintenance investment, and the asset has deteriorated.
6. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states the location of utilities - affects future planning. Meaning it would be difficult, costly, and disruptive to make any significant changes.
7. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there are safety concerns - especially lay-bys. An addition 4,000 vehicles would increase the likelihood of accidents and therefore safety issues, and the already overcrowded A127 would have gridlock even more frequently and for elongated periods of time.
8. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states there is already an negative impact on pollution. The addition of up to 4,000 vehicles would exponentially increase pollution, which flies in the face of the Kyoto Agreement of which the United Kingdom is a fully signed up member.
9. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways (lanes).
10. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is infeasible to add additional highways.
11. Per the report A127 Corridor For Growth it states it is too expensive to add additional highways.
12. The additional homes from the partly developed Ford Dunton Village, which has not yet reached maximum occupancy, has already created a daily gridlock at the A127 / B148 interchange with associated backup of traffic into Laindon / Langdon Hills.
13. By adding the probable 4,000 more vehicles onto already overcrowded A127 the likelihood is that the incidents of accidents will increase significantly. Motorists will become aware of these situations and will make route changes to their daily commute which will see them using the minor roads that are around the A127, thus destroying those environments and adding to pollution levels in those communities.
14. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point in the rush hours and cannot take any more passengers.
15. The local railway line C2C is currently at breaking point, and there is no ability to expand in terms of additional tracks.

Education Facilities
1. With the CURRENT lack of Secondary School provision in West Basildon, many children are shipped to Secondary Schools north of the A127, including Billericay, Brentwood, Shenfield and Wickford. This already creates many traffic backlogs and with another 2,000 homes generating many children of all ages, this situation would worsen significantly.
2. The provision of Education is under the control of Essex County Council and they have no such plans to increase schools.
3. There is no money allocated to build new schools.


Health Facilities
1. Basildon hospital cannot cope with the additional7,500 residents which would be as a result of an additional 2,500 homes. It is already overstretched running at full capacity too often, and hospitals should not exceed the safe levels of more than 85% of beds full. Lives will be put at risk. More residents equals more patients equals more times when Basildon Hospital will be rated as Black as it is already ranked as 15 worst in the country.
2. The incidents of ambulances being "parked at Basildon Hospital with A&E being full, will increase. This means that ambulances are not able to dispatch their patients and go about answering emergency calls will increase, thus putting the lives of residents in danger.
3. Provision of surgery facilities is outside of the remit of Local Councils and as such there I no guarantee of any additional surgeries to service the increase of approximately 7,500 residents. I already experience a 5 week wait time to see my GP an excellent Doctor who is overworked. With the additional 7,500 residents (at 3 per household) and what appears to be closest to a recommended average of 1,600 patients per Doctor, would produce the requirement of approximately 5 new GP's using rounded numbers.
4. There is already a shortage of trained / qualified GP's so waiting times for appointments will increase significantly and endanger residents' health.

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!

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Re: Dunton Garden Village Proposed Development vs Medow House
Concerns/Issues
Potential implications to our local environment and its impact on what we thought, and have been repeatedly told, is green belt:
- Affect on our local environment during construction through noise dust, mud and the affect of site traffic on entry and exit to our property, traffic flow interruption impacting on the A127 and A128
Once the Development is completed:
- Damage that impacts on the rural scene, affecting ourselves significantly, the development will only grow
- Pollution through additional traffic, entry and exit to our property will be compromised
- Reduction of privacy and potential safety risk, as we cannot evaluate who or what will be developed near us.
Overall consideration of this proposed development, that goes a long way to fulfill the requirements of additional housing in the Borough, brings us to believe, in principle only, that we do not object.
However, without detailed plans it is unclear at this moment whether the development includes our property/land or whether our property/land is to remain under developed. Hence it is difficult to respond from a personal perspective.
We have been lead to believe that the green belt is non-negotiable, with that in mind we decided to invest time, effort and money into redeveloping our residential property, workshop, approach road and surrounding land with a view to making our future more enjoyable and hopefully recoup our investment in the short or long term. The major frustration being the lack of any plan with not even a scheme and a real possibility of not seeing one until the end of 2016. Without any reassurance of how this development will affect us we will have to finish our renovation project and hope the proposed development is not to the detriment of our property and living space.
We have spoken to a representative of the company acting as a development agent for the major land owner in this development who suggested that there may be development potential on our land, however, this person has not been in touch since. If this were the case we would be happy to accept and realize any potential to sell with development rights. Alternatively, try for these rights ourselves and incorporate our land into the development land.
This could leave us in a compromising situation residing in a property surrounded by a large scale development without any control of what will end up around us.
There could well be a situation where value is taken off this property which after all we have been through would be the last thing we need. On that point we will accept the situation of (as mentioned earlier) our land could be incorporated as part of the development plan and sold with that permission or seeking planning permission on the land that would fall into line with the overall requirement of the proposed Dunton Garden Village.

See attached.

See attached.

I was impressed with the information at the open consultation event at Tipps Cross last night. All very helpful and clear
I agree with the sites allocated and they make sense to me. In particular I think Basildon will benefit a great deal. There is so much going for this particular development in that area with shops, buses, trains etc.