To whom it may concern
I object to this consultation as it is flawed figures are incorrect & Greenbelt is misrepresented on your plans I am looking to buy a house in the area I was brought up , this will be unaffordable for me .
The houses are for people coming in fro
Outside of the area NOT for local people like me -I am out priced from living i this area .
Greenbelt should never be built on for monetary gain for developers .
Our roads are overburdened it takes my over half an hour to get to West Horndon station from Billericay Rd !
Greenbelt & wildlife should be protected -Brown field used first .

I object to this consultation as it is flawed figures are incorrect & Greenbelt is misrepresented on your plans I am looking to buy a house in the area I was brought up , this will be unaffordable for me .
The houses are for people coming in fro
Outside of the area NOT for local people like me -I am out priced from living i this area .
Greenbelt should never be built on for monetary gain for developers .
Our roads are overburdened it takes my over half an hour to get to West Horndon station from Billericay Rd !

On the Brentwood Town Centre Design Plan it indicates a potential change to parking of 559-225. Does this really mean that 559 parking places are being reduced to 225? With retail being expanded by a potential 4600 sq m, how are retail visitors meant to park?

I have briefly read the plan for our future. The building on almost every conceivable car park seems ludicrous. We will have more houses, more people with ghost towns as people will need to shop out of town. Even Brentwood car park will be built on. Where will we park for the high street shops and restaurants?

I would like to comment on the Brentwood draft local plan. The housing is needed, however certain things must be protected in the plans. It is vital to protect all existing allotment sites, especially as the increase in housing will result in an even greater demand for allotments in the Brentwood area.

I object to the planning proposals. The traffic problems are becoming unbearable. A 45 minute commute has become a one and a half hour commute and will only get worse. No infrastructure. Devastation of our green spaces is unacceptable.

Please consider the pressure upon all services and all residents who will be greatly affected by this decision.

I object to these proposals because

Infrastructure

The road infrastructure is already under severe strain currently if there are any incidents on the surrounding roads our villages of Herongate and Ingrave grind to a halt.
Our children are regularly late for school because the school bus is caught up in the traffic. The current level of fuel emissions from the cars in stationary traffic are already detrimental to the environment and have health implications how can you possibly consider adding to this.

The roads are currently poorly maintained with huge pot holes along the A128 if you cannot maintain these with the current levels of traffic how do you propose to maintain these with the significant increase in traffic.

Have c2c been approached to outline how they will cope with the impact of increased number passengers at either West Herndon or Upminster station or adding another station? Both station car parks are already at bursting point I cannot see evidence of consultation with the rail network on your plans


Affordable Housing

I am concerned the houses will not be affordable for first time buyers but will simply be priced at market rate so in reality there will be a proportion of affordable or social housing amongst houses in excess of £750k


Strain on NHS

Orsett hospital is closing, several hospital trusts are merging, given most of the hospitals were declaring black alert due to shortage of beds in a&e how do you propose they will cope with several thousand extra people in the area?


The council has deliberately misled residents

Why did our councillors blatantly lie to us with seemingly no repercussions about protecting the green belt?

Having viewed the proposed development plan for Brentwood and the outlying areas, I feel that there has not been sufficient thought and investigation into the proposed sites.

Whilst I am fully aware that as a district we have to provide a not insignificant number of new homes and I understand the need for development, at what price? Many of the sites appear to be a 'knee jerk reaction' and I can invisage huge traffic congestion and pollution , plus loss of areas of wildlife.


Do any of the Planning team ever use the Doddinghurst Road to travel into town at peak times? It will be a 'car park'. How will these proposed dwellings be serviced by schools, Doctors surgeries etc? If all these plans go ahead, including those to build on town centre car parks I can't imagine there will even be a High Street to shop in.

I sincerely hope that these plans will be reconsidered with thought to the current residents of the area, including our furred and feathered friends.

Any increase in housing in and around Brentwood, will in turn directly increase traffic in the area, leading to increased congestion and increased pollution / poor air quality.
Currently the roads are unable to cope with the volume of traffic that uses them and are very congested. Any plans to increase housing volumes need to be PRE-empted by a review and remodelling of local roads.

Of particular concern is increasing the traffic usage on the A128 with the proposed property developments at the Sow & Grow Nursery Site (Site Ref 010). There are daily delays due to traffic jams into Brentwood which will only be made worse by increasing the number of residence along this road.

In addition, other infrastructure concerns, such as health care and car parking need to be addressed BEFORE additional housing is developed.

I wish to object to the 2018 local plan because most of the proposed sites are on greenbelt or farmland.Also the existing infrastructure is not capable of dealing with the extra residents and their vehicles. Affordable, low impact, social housing should be given more consideration.

002 - Brentwood Rail Car park
Removing the car park to make way for housing development is a big concern. Those who need to use the car park to commute via train are likely to need access to their cars, in order to transport children to and from nursery for example before and after a working day. Public transport is not just the easy answer and careful consideration needs to be made on the impact this will have.

Honeypot Lane - 022
Honeypot Lane and Weald Road (St Faith's Walk) is used by residents to relax, walk their dogs and enjoy the fresh air. It separates the existing houses between Honepypot Lane and Borromeo way well. If this land is up for development it will become densely populated. The biggest concern in addition to taking away more greenbelt land for all to enjoy is the local infrastructure. Our country roads are not built to take this amount of traffic. We are already grid locked as you head onto London road at the bottom of the high street and encouraging people to drive through Honeypot lane or Weald Road is not going to improve the volume of traffic but make it considerably worse and unpleasant for those who live there. Also schools are a big factor. It is difficult to understand how we will be able to provide more school places for all new residents, given most schools are not based on catchment area and serves an already large area of Brentwood already. On a yearly basis, school subscription for St Peters, St Helen's and St Thomas's, in particular, are oversubscribed.

Doddinghurst - 023A and 023B
Similarly the land here, serves the right balance between being next to the A12 and still making it feel like we live in the countryside, for the residents and people who access the area. Infrastructure is also a big concern. The Doddinghurst Road, leading onto Ongar Road is one of the few main roads we have running through Brentwood. When its busy we are already grid locked at rush hour and weekends, so providing a further 200 homes will not improve things. It was mentioned that public transport could be an option to assist with this, but we are not that well equipped to provide this support network for the distances people travel. Similarly, schools within the Doddinghurst Road area are already oversubscribed, so it would be good to understand how this will be dealt with to ensure all residents in the area and the borough get their first choice, given ECC make a point of championing this.

William Hunter Way - 102 and Chatham Way 040
These car parks serve a number of shoppers/visitors coming in to Brentwood given the central location. Parking is already limited, and it doesn't feel we are serving the community or town well if we remove these car parks. There is a concern it could have a reverse effect on the number of people choosing to come into the town for shopping thus having a negative impact on retail within the high st. Public transport is equally not a simple solution for the needs of the everyday resident i.e. families or the elderly. Creating densely populated areas in close proximity of the town will not add to its character either but will make the town feel overcrowded and chaotic.

Priests Lane - site ref 178 and 044 and Crescent Drive - 186
This land offers existing residents and visitors the space to enjoy our green spaces. By cannibalising this with further development it will only contribute to densely populated areas, more pressure on our roads and school places.

Dunton Hills Garden Village - xxxx
It will be a sad loss to the area if we choose to lose this green space especially for those who currently reside there and play golf in the area. It is understood that this development will be created to run self-sufficiently in terms of expansions of health care, and creation of new schools. However, it needs further exploration around the demographic we choose to attract and if it is anticipated this overspill will go into Basildon and Grays in terms of shopping and transport links for rail and how this will impact residents there. The biggest concern is that if this development goes ahead it will fundamentally change our landscape and population make-up for good.


General comment overall:
From the plans and having spoken to council representatives, it can be seen that there has been careful consideration on where the number of homes can be expanded and over time, in order to try and avoid eating too much into greenbelt and creating a balance within the Borough. Likewise, the plans for creating business in the area is positive. However, that said, it is important to protect the Borough and its greenbelt for future generations to enjoy. It would be good to understand if we can challenge the Government's quota as they will be just looking at ensuring more homes are created rather than how this will affect the Borough for generations to come.

The biggest concern with the expansion overall, in particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village, is how do we ensure we retain the Borough as it currently stands. Overall, Brentwood is considered an affluent town with good primary schools and a traditional high street. It is important that with the constant changes we still maintain this. For example, ensuring we continue to attract the right demographic i.e. professionals and families and those from retirement age who will value and look after the Borough's future, as well as developing homes that are in keeping with the local area (i.e. red brick homes, rather than continual modern architecture which appears to be springing up).

Having the infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare to support such an expansion and increasing population is also important, in particular, within the urban area of Brentwood. There needs to be clear evidence we are able to provide this before any development commences, as it is already evident that our school places are oversubscribed, and our roads are already congested, in particular Ongar Road and Shenfield Road. Public transport cannot just be the simple answer nor simply building new roads. We cannot model solutions on what London offers transport wise, because we are within the London corridor. We are still very much a Borough in the countryside and we should make every effort to protect this and the quality of life for all now and for the future.

There is also reference in the documentation of the local plans for entertainment. If this is to be considered we need to strike the balance with making it for all to enjoy, without creating additional issues such as crime and rubbish.

The number of dwellings proposed for each site around the centre of Brentwood suggests small dwellings with increased population requirements. Flats seem to be a common theme and there is a proliferation of them already. While I recognise people need to live somewhere, there is little evidence that due consideration has been given to the infrastructure. Living the experience, it is impossible to get a GP appointment; dentists are equally difficult to access, many refusing to take on more patients. The roads are increasingly impassable due to the sheer weight of traffic and it is likely that many of the flats put up will have limited parking which means increased parking on pavements and local roads, adding to the problem. The roads and pavements are in poor repair already without the additional numbers proposed for Brentwood.
There is little said about the retail needs of the town. It is increasingly obvious, that Sainsburys is not coping with the demand and the retail in Brentwood offers little choice to the local residents. The Bay Tree Centre has been largely neglected and the move to remove BM and eventually Wilkinsons so more flats can be built will force residents to shop elsewhere, further destroying the community and will go against the needs of vulnerable residents who may not have the option. The suggestion that William Hunter Way site will provide retail space as well as housing has already been proposed before with huge wastes of public money after the whole plan collapsed. Are we really to believe that there will be good retail provision? Added to this if you remove all the car parks, the suggestion is we do not need them, as there will be no shops to visit! The Government focus is solely on housing at all costs and not the living experience or quality of life of those who have to live there. The plans suggest to me that this has not been considered for those who live close to the centre and I know from bitter experience, how poorly the Brentwood Borough Council function, with poor processes, lack of transparency, and generally ignoring the needs of the local residents.
I am writing this with no doubt in my mind that this is futile, as I am sure all the other objections are. This is merely a tick box exercise. Those who should represent the needs of the local residents have not so for many years.

GENERAL

1 When planning permission is granted there should be strict use it or loose it time constraints As with The Crown development Ingatestone WELL DONE

2 If we are so desperate for housing .Low density projects as Trueloves
Ingatestone would appear wasteful of much needed land NOT ONE OF YOUR BEST DECISIONS

3 Provision of electric car charging points should be a consideration

4 There should be proactive action on empty properties and land banking

SPECIFIC PROPOSALS

I find putting forward BRENTWOOD RAILWAY CAR PARK misguided and strongly
object It is a most important facility at present and surely if the town and
its environs are to expand to rail use will also expand

INGATESTONE The surgery is at its limit now . Redrose ? the owners of the GARDEN
CENTRE have undertaken to make ONEOFF contributions to schools and health care
The problem at the doctors is getting staff , both nurses and doctors . They are overwhelmed at present with any more pressure almost certain to result in
departures and not recruitment

The biggest problem that residents object to is the perceived over development, i.e. loss of existing space and feel, and whilst that is a nice to have, that's why many people choose to live in Brentwood. The central Government plan (NPPF) should not be a carte blanche for ruining towns and local areas, hence the local consultation should be listened to with a higher priority.

1. The access roads (including Parking), Schools, and Healthcare facilities are already over burdened, so they should be improved first even if it means we enjoy a better (relative) service for a while whilst building catches up). Most will argue these services have declined in the last decade(s), hence the relative anger over expansion plans.

2. So improve infrastructure ahead of development, and building companies should make less profits whilst providing housing; helping to fund these improvements.

3. The planning LDP is dependent on other agencies to provide infrastructure improvements, so these agencies (Transport (roads trains etc), Healthcare (NHS), Police, ) should have plans firmly linked to the Brentwood LDP.

4. I believe that residents are already stretched in terms of services provided and need solid assurances that they will not further deteriorate.

5. Each preferred site location needs a linked plan of how its growth or new presence will affect residents and then how it will be solved. This will avoid objections at actual planning time.

6. The so-called 'affordable housing scheme' unfortunately brings residents otherwise unable to afford to live the areas of development into that area, effectively degrading in some cases the location. Resident's work hard to attain status such as 'a nice area' so it should not be automatic that a mix should be provided. What is wrong with building a development of affordable properties only (I understand the social implications, but it works both ways).

The biggest problem that residents object to is the perceived over development, i.e. loss of existing space and feel, and whilst that is a nice to have, that's why many people choose to live in Brentwood. The central Government plan (NPPF) should not be a carte blanche for ruining towns and local areas, hence the local consultation should be listened to with a higher priority.

1. The access roads (including Parking), Schools, and Healthcare facilities are already over burdened, so they should be improved first even if it means we enjoy a better (relative) service for a while whilst building catches up). Most will argue these services have declined in the last decade(s), hence the relative anger over expansion plans.

2. So improve infrastructure ahead of development, and building companies should make less profits whilst providing housing; helping to fund these improvements.

3. The planning LDP is dependent on other agencies to provide infrastructure improvements, so these agencies (Transport (roads trains etc), Healthcare (NHS), Police, ) should have plans firmly linked to the Brentwood LDP.

4. I believe that residents are already stretched in terms of services provided and need solid assurances that they will not further deteriorate.

5. Each preferred site location needs a linked plan of how its growth or new presence will affect residents and then how it will be solved. This will avoid objections at actual planning time.

6. The so-called 'affordable housing scheme' unfortunately brings residents otherwise unable to afford to live the areas of development into that area, effectively degrading in some cases the location. Resident's work hard to attain status such as 'a nice area' so it should not be automatic that a mix should be provided. What is wrong with building a development of affordable properties only (I understand the social implications, but it works both ways).

The biggest problem that residents object to is the perceived over development, i.e. loss of existing space and feel, and whilst that is a nice to have, that's why many people choose to live in Brentwood. The central Government plan (NPPF) should not be a carte blanche for ruining towns and local areas, hence the local consultation should be listened to with a higher priority.

1. The access roads (including Parking), Schools, and Healthcare facilities are already over burdened, so they should be improved first even if it means we enjoy a better (relative) service for a while whilst building catches up). Most will argue these services have declined in the last decade(s), hence the relative anger over expansion plans.

2. So improve infrastructure ahead of development, and building companies should make less profits whilst providing housing; helping to fund these improvements.

3. The planning LDP is dependent on other agencies to provide infrastructure improvements, so these agencies (Transport (roads trains etc), Healthcare (NHS), Police, ) should have plans firmly linked to the Brentwood LDP.

4. I believe that residents are already stretched in terms of services provided and need solid assurances that they will not further deteriorate.

5. Each preferred site location needs a linked plan of how its growth or new presence will affect residents and then how it will be solved. This will avoid objections at actual planning time.

6. The so-called 'affordable housing scheme' unfortunately brings residents otherwise unable to afford to live the areas of development into that area, effectively degrading in some cases the location. Resident's work hard to attain status such as 'a nice area' so it should not be automatic that a mix should be provided. What is wrong with building a development of affordable properties only (I understand the social implications, but it works both ways).

I am re-emailing my previous comments as I feel that they are still relevant.


1. It would appear that the Council has allocated a number of its Car parks, as land suitable for building dwellings. This includes the car parks in Westbury Road, Chatham Way and William Hunter Way. This creates two problems:

a) In fill like this does not provide an attractive environment - either for the new residents or existing residents.
b) There does not seem to be clear provision of new/alternative car parking to replace the lost spaces. Where are visitors/shoppers supposed to park? Where do Brentwood workers park, long-stay? Its difficult enough at present.

I was told a few years ago that there was a waiting list for long-term parking annual permits: a friend asked to park on my drive because he couldn't park in Brentwood while he worked. Also, I know one retailer who received £3,000 worth of parking fines for parking his work van at the back of his shop, because he could no longer get a parking permit for a local car park. He has since closed the shop in Brentwood High Street.

* The Council removed the small free parking bay at the end of the High Street, which allowed for 30 minutes of shopping - very appropriate for the types of shops directly next to this bay. Unsurprisingly, a number of these have now shut - the shoe repairers, the florist, the fruit and veg shop etc which were independent shops. The Council claims to encourage these in section 8.37.
S. 8.37 refers to Brentwood Town Centre attracting many visitors for a variety of reasons including a high quality shopping environment. The current empty units are unattractive, and the choices of retailers who have recently taken some of the larger spaces are not conducive to an interesting and up-market shopping experience. And if, as per s. 8.56 the Council "seeks to retain existing large retail units as they can be a major driver of footfall" why did it allow The Dairyman and Wildwood to take the larger retail sites when they became vacant?

* Brentwood is too expensive and not an attractive enough shopping area with its difficult-to-find and very expensive when-you-do-find-it parking. If I needed to drive to shops, I would drive to Upminster which has lovely shops, a choice of supermarkets and cheap, available parking. There is always Lakeside. Or, I would drive further afield for a much wider choice of niche shops, for example to Tunbridge Wells, or Cambridge.

2. Section 8 discusses that the town apparently requires more retail units and section 5.74 states that the existing vacant units are not sufficient to provide for the requirement.
There are currently at least 20 empty units in the High Street, Bay Tree Centre, Kings Road and Chapel Ruins area. Why can these not be filled first? Can these be adapted (if smaller or larger units are desired) for use by retailers, with their advance agreement, so that shopping in Brentwood is an attractive proposition.

3. The consultation for the semi-pedestrianisation of the High Street was largely ignored by the Council, who appeared determined to press ahead regardless of public opinion. The subsequent decision to re-surface the High Street has been an expensive disaster. The road needs extensive, expensive repairs and although its appearance is pleasing, it was not necessary. Please do not make
the same mistake of ignoring public opinion.

4. Regarding a cinema - something that has been promised for the last 15+ years. We still don't have a cinema in the town, which is a great shame. I still don't understand why this cannot be at the Brentwood Sports and Leisure Centre where there is the space for a new building, and the parking that would be needed. I have been told that one concern is "already congested roads" but I don't agree that the roads are congested towards the Brentwood Centre. In fact, if the cinema were built in William Hunter Way, the increased traffic in William Hunter Way, Western Avenue and Weald Road, including the crossroads junctions with the High Street would be worse.

5. What is happening with the space that has been boarded up since the demolition of the Grade 11 listed building that was the Sir Charles Napier pub? It is very ugly at the moment, and a waste of development space that is sorely needed. This requires development so that it is both attractive and useful.

6. Brentwood needs some open spaces and to retain its Victorian market town feel. The little "green area" in Kings Road makes such a difference and more like this would be very welcome.

7. Re. resurfacing the High street : Not only did this close the High Street for nearly a year causing major sales problems for many retailers, but it also means that you cannot cycle in the High Street, and nor can there be the annual Cycle Race that used to occur.

kind regards
Susan Marigold

I am writing regarding this and am unable to copy your form to this email - perhaps I am too late for commenting.
My comments are one of alarm at the number of sites you have noted in the plan. Hopefully not all will come to pass. It seems to me that a lot of these proposed sites take no account of the extra traffic and therefore congestion which would be caused. The developments at Warley, Fords, Mascalls Lane would cause severe pressure on Mascalls Lane itself - it already suffers from greatly increased traffic from the Warley Hospital developments. Most of the town centre proposals would also cause congestion and if car parks are developed where is parking to be provided for those residents and visitors.
While I appreciate that there is a need for housing in this country due to increases in the population I feel it is necessary that it is done so as not to destroy the country and the quality of life most of us are lucky to have. London and the south east always seem to bear to brunt of mass building you only have to look at London on leaving Liverpool Street for that!!
Some the proposed sites seem to be taking greenfield or woods into the development area which is unnecessary. We have many brownfield sites which should be used first. I understand the Campaign to Protect Rural England has listed sites throughout the country which could provide about 1 million homes. Will there be more roads to accommodate extra traffic, more schools, healthcare services, buses and trains and, perhaps, more importantly - jobs? I note some of the sites take industrial areas into being developed for homes. I know a great deal is done on the internet but there will surely be a need for other types of work.
While not agreeing with a lot in the plan it is good that a plan is being prepared as I saw a programme which showed what happens if local councils do not have one or update one. We are lucky to live in Brentwood which still has country parks and green areas - at the moment - but I think most people would be unhappy to see it turned into a Romford and Ilford which I think looks like a mini-Manhattan!
I note that the Council Office and the former Police Station sites are not mentioned - are these already decided? The land in Ingrave Road which was formerly Warwick Wright has been standing empty for years.
I do not think this huge planned development of 300,000 homes a year is realistic bearing in mind the infrastructure that has to go with it. Also will it really end bearing in mind the figures suggesting 200,000+ (net) people are migrating to the UK every year!

I am making comments on the plan and note the suggestion that Fords Warley and the Eagle and Child pub will both close as part of this plan. Clearly the closure of Fords is a massive blow to the area and I do hope they are relocating.
I note the plan for business premises. The problem in this area are that the requirements for business premises are not met by the current stock of properties available. As a small office style business which needs to be near to transport links the absence of suitable accommodation has caused us to relocate to South Quays. There appears to be a view that our of area business sites are the most useful. They are not for the current type of micro and SME that is being created.
My other concerns are about the road links and car parking as a consequence of these plans. I would urge the development first of a major multi story car parkin Brentwood before the other projects run. At present it is difficult to park and any change to the level of car parking to residents is likely to have a negative impact on the High Street and surrounding areas.
The Priests Lane development has real problems in terms of road usage. The minor roads that would be the linkage are already overused and are likely to be clogged. The impact on the limited car parking in Shenfield will also need to be considered. To maximise the value of Crossrail there is a need for a multi story car parking Shenfield which should probably be on one of the Railway existing car parks. This will allow Shenfield to be the successful transport hub it needs to be. However you will also be aware of the problems with the roads around the station and main street area and this must be addressed as part of the plan. I would suggest that the multi story be built and then the main street parking bays be removed altogether.
To get buy in from the local population to this I would suggest that in the first stage the car park should be free to local residents and that a residents voucher can be obtained. However out of town users will need to pay which will subsidise the project.

I visited your local presentation in the Baytree Centre on Saturday 3rd March and spoke to one of your staff regarding the Officers Meadow Shenfield location adjacent to Chelmsford Road and the open space in Alexander Lane location.
Firstly Officers Meadow, The Chelmsford Roads sewerage arrangements for the existing properties from Alexander Lane to the A12 Roundabout, are fed via a small pumping station across the Shenfield School Playing fields through my garden and discharging into the main sewer in Oliver Road. Please see the attached letters from 1974.
In the event that Officers Meadow is developed with a significant increase in housing the existing sewage system will obviously be inadequate and will be a very costly problem to overcome hopefully using a different route.
Secondly the open space at the back of the school playing field adjacent to Alexander Lane was I believe given to the people of Shenfield by the Courage Family for recreational purposes.
This being the case it is not available for development.
I have lived in Oliver Road since 1973 and was part of the residents association that contested the bus route to Shenfield station in 1979/80, which we lost at the time only for the route to be cancelled within a year due to lack of use. Incidentally the bus stops are still there today having not been used for over 38 years.
I hope you find my comments useful especially the attached letters regarding the existing pumping station discharge point in Oliver Road.

Dear Sirs

I am writing to you in response to your letter seeking representations to the draft local plan.

I have looked through the plan and would like to oppose it.

Having looked at the proposed sites, it seems you have given absolutely no consideration to the local residents in the area. We have had a considerable about of development and new homes in the area in the past few years, and yet you want to remove even more land for new homes.

I understand the need for homes and using brownfield sites is preferable, but with one exception you are planning on using every car park in the vacinity of the town and high street, where do you expect people to park? Local residential streets are already over flowing with cars, causing chaos on certain roads, particularly those around the train station and Rollason Way. Likewise the station car park - where will commuters park? You state that the issue of commuter parking will need to be considered but you don't say how or where, how is that a legitimate plan? Surely you need to have a plan for this too? Or all those cars, and the car park is full on most days, will again be parking on local roads.

My main concern however is for facilities in the area. I already have to wait 4 weeks for an emergency GP appointment at Beechwood surgery, your figures already state that the surgery is below average in terms of numbers of GPs and nurses per resident in comparison to the UK average. With hundreds and hundreds of homes on the plan for Warley, how is this one surgery going to cope when already you have to wait 4 weeks for an emergency appointment - yes emergency!

If your development plan actually had a plan to accommodate these issues it would be easier to accept. But in the past you have continually built new homes without adding in any new facilities, despite saying you will, as such our facilities are already completely over stretched and not fit for purpose.

Realistically how can you propose to build even more homes before you fix the problems caused by the last round of building?

I look forward to your response.

Regards

Ms Miller

Dear Sirs

I am writing to you in response to your letter seeking representations to the draft local plan.

I have looked through the plan and would like to oppose it.

Having looked at the proposed sites, it seems you have given absolutely no consideration to the local residents in the area. We have had a considerable about of development and new homes in the area in the past few years, and yet you want to remove even more land for new homes.

I understand the need for homes and using brownfield sites is preferable, but with one exception you are planning on using every car park in the vacinity of the town and high street, where do you expect people to park? Local residential streets are already over flowing with cars, causing chaos on certain roads, particularly those around the train station and Rollason Way. Likewise the station car park - where will commuters park? You state that the issue of commuter parking will need to be considered but you don't say how or where, how is that a legitimate plan? Surely you need to have a plan for this too? Or all those cars, and the car park is full on most days, will again be parking on local roads.

My main concern however is for facilities in the area. I already have to wait 4 weeks for an emergency GP appointment at Beechwood surgery, your figures already state that the surgery is below average in terms of numbers of GPs and nurses per resident in comparison to the UK average. With hundreds and hundreds of homes on the plan for Warley, how is this one surgery going to cope when already you have to wait 4 weeks for an emergency appointment - yes emergency!

If your development plan actually had a plan to accommodate these issues it would be easier to accept. But in the past you have continually built new homes without adding in any new facilities, despite saying you will, as such our facilities are already completely over stretched and not fit for purpose.

Realistically how can you propose to build even more homes before you fix the problems caused by the last round of building?

I look forward to your response.

Regards

Ms Miller

I object to these proposals because they are another nail in the coffin of our Green Belt which was set to be protected by urban sprawl such as the proposed development.
The amount of houses are not needed and will add to an already congested and highly polluted area.
Local infrastructure will not be able to cope and we've already seen difficulties in the last few years in getting doctors appointments and school places.

I have now read this and whilst I appreciate the work that has gone into it I am somewhat concerned that not all my infrastructure concerns have been addressed. The implications for Education, Health and Employment appear to be well developed but at this stage it appears to me that the Transport implications have been 'glossed over'. Public transport away from the East-West corridor through the Borough is currently very patchy and in my experience car owners use their cars even for very short journeys (especially the school run). Given that Brentwood is according to the plan a relatively wealthy borough is there any reason to believe that more houses will not mean more car journeys putting a greater strain on our existing road system? Am I worrying unnecessarily and will final versions of the plan include the necessary road improvements, traffic calming measures, traffic lights at dangerous junctions, zebra crossings, appropriate parking provisions etc?

To whom it may concern.

Please note my consultation regarding the Brentwo0d Local Plan. I tried to reply on the consultation but the links do not appear to be working correctly. I assume this is to discourage feedback or objections.

I have grave concerns about the lack of infrastructure ie Doctors, Health facilities and Schools included in this plan.

There are way too many houses being built and I believe It will have to rely on services outside the borough to sustain it, therefore making it difficult for local residents to obtain services and pushing cost on to other local boroughs.

I was on the understanding that now the consortium of boroughs had been agreed in this area they were all going to work together to keep housing, growth and employment flowing. I feel this plan just promotes the housing giving nothing back to the community.

I write on behalf of myself and my wife to register our serious concerns at the potential impact of the proposals embodied in the local plan. Before I begin, I should perhaps apologise if it turns out that I have based what follows on partial information, or on a misunderstanding of what is proposed. To some extent, I assume this must be the case, since in some areas (my first three bullet points below) the plan appears to be contradicting itself. I am assuming that the document of interest is the one headed 'Preferred Site Allocations 2018' - I have trawled through the website looking for other relevant information, and also in the hopes that there might actually be a shorter summary document, but have found neither. Regrettably I have struggled with this document because so much of it is given over to, what is for me, irrelevant minutiae relating to government policy; because different figures appear in different places; because it makes use of jargon and - my apologies - because the earlier portions are given over to meaningless platitudes. Anyway, assuming this is the correct document, I have a number of specific points : The introductory comments suggest state that 'People choose to live and work here because of the excellent transport links connecting us to London and the rest of the country, along with access to the surrounding countryside and green spaces' and also that 'A "borough of villages" will continue to be a defining characteristic of the area.' Green field and Green Belt development: I struggle to see how a plan which envisages significant building upon green-field sites can be reconciled with maintaining the bucolic charms which you see as an essential characteristic of the town; and nor do I see how the notion of a 'borough of villages' is enhanced by concreting over the gaps between them. There was a time - I believed - when the green belt was supposed to be sacrosanct, but I presume this is no longer the case. My concern is not simply the present intention to build within the Green Belt, but the inevitable precedent this sets. I presume the argument runs that we would be building only / mainly on Green Belt sites which are already compromised by existing development. But in so doing, yet more land will be compromised - paving the way for the same argument to be repeated forever, while the Green Belt steadily vanishes under tarmac. Rail links: If we really believe that fast transport links are a major attractor, I cannot understand how a plan to build on the station car park can do anything other than undermine this. You may be able to get to London in twenty minutes from the station, but if your journey time to the station now takes twenty minutes more than before because you can't park there (longer if you have to travel early and there are no buses), surely the fact that the train is fast is irrelevant - and certainly for businesses there must be a temptation to locate elsewhere where possibly property prices are lower? Transport infrastructure: Presumably you must have considered the impact of the plan upon the road and general transport infrastructure of the town, but the plan seems to have nothing to say about the transport infrastructure to support all this development (or if it does, I have failed to find it). As you will know only too well, Brentwood essentially has only one major road east-west, and one north-south, and even without blockages, travel across town can be extremely time-consuming and frustrating, particularly at rush hour - in addition reducing air quality in the town centre; and I know that in towns such as Cambridge, traffic congestion has caused a number of startups to abandon plans to locate in the city, and to move elsewhere. Proposals for significant further building in the town centre cannot but exacerbate the problem - and exacerbate it significantly. Developments on William Hunter Way and on the Wates Way Industrial Estate are particular cases in point, the latter in respect of the awkward junction between Burland Rd and Ongar Rd. I imagine you must have modelled likely capacity requirements and have proposals to address them? What were the outcomes of those investigations, and what specific plans are in place to relieve the congestion which will otherwise inevitably arise? Are you considering further road building (and if so, how much existing property will need to be demolished to make way for new or widened roads, and to what extent will this compromise what you are trying to achieve); and what provision is being made for public transport? Overall growth: I have had difficulty identifying the actual number of dwellings the plan envisages, since different numbers appear in different places in the document. So far as I can see, the plan calls for an additional 7600 houses over the period to 2033 - or possibly it calls for 9080. According to 2011 census information online, Brentwood had 30,600 households at that time. Assuming (generously) that this equates to 30,600 individual homes, this still appears to mean that the Brentwood district will grow over the next 15 years by approximately 25% - 30%, and it is impossible to imagine that this can do other than change the whole character of the area. Car parks: I am concerned at the number of Brentwood town-centre car parks which the plan envisages giving over to housing. What studies have you carried out to investigate the impact of this upon town-centre businesses, and what is the risk that this will simply drive shoppers away from Brentwood altogether? (And in the latter case, what is your estimate of the environmental impact of the additional travel?) Plans by Tesco: I realise that Tesco's plans to redevelop the Hopefield Animal Sanctuary site appear to be outside the scope of the plan. Nonetheless, they would certainly impact upon Brentwood town centre, and therefore upon the developments covered by the plan. Is planning permission likely to be given to Tesco? If so, how is it intended that the new development should be linked to existing roads, given that there are a number of schools along Sawyer's Hall Lane, and the area is already very congested at the start and end of the school day? And what impact would it have upon the council's own plan? Plans for the Ford Offices at Warley: I was unaware that this site might become available. Is Ford planning a closure off its own bat? And if the offices do close, has any assessment been made of the impact upon the local economy? Let us close by thanking you for your time in considering these issues. We look forward to any comments you can make to set our minds at rest.

I am resident in Ingrave and wish to voice my absolute disapproval of and dismay at the plans to build residential housing on any Greenbelt land.

If this proposal is given the green light, a very dangerous precedent will be set and we will find ourselves part of yet another "urban sprawl". Should this precious land be built on, there is no going back and we'll have lost it forever.

The Greenbelt aside, I cannot fathom why this proposal is even being considered given the fact there is no infrastructure to accommodate such large numbers of new dwellings in the area.

My main concerns are:

. An enormous strain will be put on the surrounding roads - the A128, A127 and A13 - already overcrowded for several hours from early morning and then again from late afternoon.

. Whether a new train station is built or not at or near to the proposed site at Dunton, how on earth can the C2C line into Fenchurch Street accommodate commuters from even a fraction of the planned 1000s of new dwellings? Also the car park at West Horndon station is full to capacity on most weekdays.

. How can there be any hope of extra trains being added given that Fenchurch Street has only one line in and one line out of a station that has only four platforms?

. Although it is anticipated that there will be new schools, doctors surgery/health centre (etc), how on earth can Basildon Hospital support a potential 6000 extra families?

With my thanks in anticipation of your attention to my comments

I object to these proposals because they do not take sufficient account of the extra infrastructure needs of roads, schools and medical amenities, as well as destroying cherished green belt.

I object to the proposals because Brentwood simply does not have the infrastructure to support the impact of the high volume of dwellings and their occupants.

There is already up to a 6 week wait to see a GP for a routine appointment.
I pay privately for a dentist - but nationwide there is a shortage of NHS dentists
None of the surrounding NHS hospitals are able to meet their national standards for A&E or referral to treatment times
There are already issues with parking
The trains are full (and offer a lousy service in comparison to Shenfield)
There is already planned disruption for the M25 by-pass to occur

Devil's crossing is a known hazard which has yet to have the investment put in to fix it let alone compound the problem.

The free garden refuse bags have been removed, but the number of visits to the tip have been restricted.

As regards site references 039, 040 and 102 they are all sites providing valuable parking space to the community when visiting Brentwood High street. In the case of site reference 002 this parking space is valuable to commuters using Brentwood train station. It would be useful to know the impact on parking in the High street area as well as impact on train commuters needing to park their car next to Brentwood station if all these sites were to be approved for housing. Have alternatives been earmarked already?