6,000 new homes in bentwood will put an intolerable strain on the already creaking infrastructure in Brentwood. The traffic jams especially along the Ongar road at Peak times are already unacceptable. The planning of housing on the Hopefield Animal Sanctuary site which has one road in and out, cannot have been carefully considered because the impact on the traffic when there are already Four schools along this road, will cause chaos. Parking in Brentwood at peak times is difficult. All the car parks are full. I cannot understand why then houses are going to be built on the William Hunter Way car park, so where are shoppers expected to park, this has to be a terrible decision. Brentwod is a small town! Most of the housing will be unaffordable for young people when flats are being sold currently for at least £350,000.!

Green belt land will be disappearing, traffic jams worse which in turn will lead to a decline in air quality, our open spaces we currently enjoy will be lost and our wildlife under threat which means a destruction in the quality of life for Brentwood's inhabitants. The only reason I can see for this badly planned housing strategy is that someone is going to be making a lot of money out of it.

I have no reservations in expressing my anger at Brentwood councils housing plans, they need to be rethought as a matter of urgency.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I popped into one of the drop in sessions in a dilapidated shop near the Baytree Centre and I had a good chat with one of your staff.

It was quite informal but I still have quite a lot of questions that have not been addressed despite my many queries in my 20 years of living in Brentwood as follows:

Why is there not 2 hours parking in Brentwood like Shenfield residents enjoy?

why are there no fast trains from Brentwood station despite it being the may residential area in the borough?

why no lift to platform 4 at Brentwood station?

why no foitpath to weald and throndon country parks?

why £5 to park in the above 2 parks?

why no benchmarking on parking charges compared to nearby towns like Upminster, Harold Hill, Hornchurch, Romford, Billericay, Basiodon, Grays, Epping, Lakeside for a start. For example Basildon and Romford have free parking on a Sunday so why doesn't Brentwood?

Why do you still charge to park in the evening when most towns nearby don't?

Why are you building houses on the car park in William Hunter Way, the car park is always full?

why are you building on Brentwood station car park, this will lose spaces and discourage use of the train station?

why is a green belt side at Honeypot Lane being built on? When the road is narrow and there is no bus route or doctor's surgery for these 250 new houses?

Why can't we have more Sunday bus routes in the district? There is no way of getting to Basildon, Lakeside or Southend and Chelmsford bus is only every 2 hours, Bishops Hall Estate every 2 hours and Hutton Circular every 2 hours, the only decent bus is the 498 to Romford still only every 30 minutes though!

Why can't Brentwoid folk use oyster cards on all the buses like you can on the train?

why is there a 4 zone difference between Brentwood and Harold Wood? It is only 3 miles and not worth a £1,000 a year for such a short journey, equally why is the fare from Brentwood to Shenfiekd for 1.5 miles £600 a year and to Harold Wood for 4.5 miles £1,600 a year, why do you allow TfL and the DfT to milk Brentwood residents to subsidise London people?

why don't the new crossrail trains have softer seats and loos on them?

why are there hardly any buses to get to Shenfield to access the 14 trains per hour? All the buses go to Brentwood station where there is only 6 an hour which are all slow and don't even go beyond Shenfield, annoyingly? !?!

why are 20 mph speed limits not enforced on residential roads?

why is there no parking enforcement on law breakers who park on double yellow lines after 6pm or all day Sunday, yet you choose to send out peaked cap people to put tickets on cars in the town centre car park, double standard or what?

i cannot access my garage due to inconsiderate oiks in the flats behing my house obstructing my garage, and the peaked cap gestapo say they are unable to do anything why?

Why no buses on the weald road to access weald country park and old macdonalds farm, and why no hail and ride bus between ongar road and weald road for non drivers and disabled?

why has the council done nothing to stop the re routing of 37 bus and cutting of other routes i.e, to Harlow, Lakeside, Stanstead Airport and Epping?

That is all folks!

Many thanks

Dear Sir / Madam,

I popped into one of the drop in sessions in a dilapidated shop near the Baytree Centre and I had a good chat with one of your staff.

It was quite informal but I still have quite a lot of questions that have not been addressed despite my many queries in my 20 years of living in Brentwood as follows:

Why is there not 2 hours parking in Brentwood like Shenfield residents enjoy?

why are there no fast trains from Brentwood station despite it being the may residential area in the borough?

why no lift to platform 4 at Brentwood station?

why no foitpath to weald and throndon country parks?

why £5 to park in the above 2 parks?

why no benchmarking on parking charges compared to nearby towns like Upminster, Harold Hill, Hornchurch, Romford, Billericay, Basiodon, Grays, Epping, Lakeside for a start. For example Basildon and Romford have free parking on a Sunday so why doesn't Brentwood?

Why do you still charge to park in the evening when most towns nearby don't?

Why are you building houses on the car park in William Hunter Way, the car park is always full?

why are you building on Brentwood station car park, this will lose spaces and discourage use of the train station?

why is a green belt side at Honeypot Lane being built on? When the road is narrow and there is no bus route or doctor's surgery for these 250 new houses?

Why can't we have more Sunday bus routes in the district? There is no way of getting to Basildon, Lakeside or Southend and Chelmsford bus is only every 2 hours, Bishops Hall Estate every 2 hours and Hutton Circular every 2 hours, the only decent bus is the 498 to Romford still only every 30 minutes though!

Why can't Brentwoid folk use oyster cards on all the buses like you can on the train?

why is there a 4 zone difference between Brentwood and Harold Wood? It is only 3 miles and not worth a £1,000 a year for such a short journey, equally why is the fare from Brentwood to Shenfiekd for 1.5 miles £600 a year and to Harold Wood for 4.5 miles £1,600 a year, why do you allow TfL and the DfT to milk Brentwood residents to subsidise London people?

why don't the new crossrail trains have softer seats and loos on them?

why are there hardly any buses to get to Shenfield to access the 14 trains per hour? All the buses go to Brentwood station where there is only 6 an hour which are all slow and don't even go beyond Shenfield, annoyingly? !?!

why are 20 mph speed limits not enforced on residential roads?

why is there no parking enforcement on law breakers who park on double yellow lines after 6pm or all day Sunday, yet you choose to send out peaked cap people to put tickets on cars in the town centre car park, double standard or what?

i cannot access my garage due to inconsiderate oiks in the flats behing my house obstructing my garage, and the peaked cap gestapo say they are unable to do anything why?

Why no buses on the weald road to access weald country park and old macdonalds farm, and why no hail and ride bus between ongar road and weald road for non drivers and disabled?

why has the council done nothing to stop the re routing of 37 bus and cutting of other routes i.e, to Harlow, Lakeside, Stanstead Airport and Epping?

That is all folks!

Many thanks

Dear Sir / Madam,

I popped into one of the drop in sessions in a dilapidated shop near the Baytree Centre and I had a good chat with one of your staff.

It was quite informal but I still have quite a lot of questions that have not been addressed despite my many queries in my 20 years of living in Brentwood as follows:

Why is there not 2 hours parking in Brentwood like Shenfield residents enjoy?

why are there no fast trains from Brentwood station despite it being the may residential area in the borough?

why no lift to platform 4 at Brentwood station?

why no foitpath to weald and throndon country parks?

why £5 to park in the above 2 parks?

why no benchmarking on parking charges compared to nearby towns like Upminster, Harold Hill, Hornchurch, Romford, Billericay, Basiodon, Grays, Epping, Lakeside for a start. For example Basildon and Romford have free parking on a Sunday so why doesn't Brentwood?

Why do you still charge to park in the evening when most towns nearby don't?

Why are you building houses on the car park in William Hunter Way, the car park is always full?

why are you building on Brentwood station car park, this will lose spaces and discourage use of the train station?

why is a green belt side at Honeypot Lane being built on? When the road is narrow and there is no bus route or doctor's surgery for these 250 new houses?

Why can't we have more Sunday bus routes in the district? There is no way of getting to Basildon, Lakeside or Southend and Chelmsford bus is only every 2 hours, Bishops Hall Estate every 2 hours and Hutton Circular every 2 hours, the only decent bus is the 498 to Romford still only every 30 minutes though!

Why can't Brentwoid folk use oyster cards on all the buses like you can on the train?

why is there a 4 zone difference between Brentwood and Harold Wood? It is only 3 miles and not worth a £1,000 a year for such a short journey, equally why is the fare from Brentwood to Shenfiekd for 1.5 miles £600 a year and to Harold Wood for 4.5 miles £1,600 a year, why do you allow TfL and the DfT to milk Brentwood residents to subsidise London people?

why don't the new crossrail trains have softer seats and loos on them?

why are there hardly any buses to get to Shenfield to access the 14 trains per hour? All the buses go to Brentwood station where there is only 6 an hour which are all slow and don't even go beyond Shenfield, annoyingly? !?!

why are 20 mph speed limits not enforced on residential roads?

why is there no parking enforcement on law breakers who park on double yellow lines after 6pm or all day Sunday, yet you choose to send out peaked cap people to put tickets on cars in the town centre car park, double standard or what?

i cannot access my garage due to inconsiderate oiks in the flats behing my house obstructing my garage, and the peaked cap gestapo say they are unable to do anything why?

Why no buses on the weald road to access weald country park and old macdonalds farm, and why no hail and ride bus between ongar road and weald road for non drivers and disabled?

why has the council done nothing to stop the re routing of 37 bus and cutting of other routes i.e, to Harlow, Lakeside, Stanstead Airport and Epping?

That is all folks!

Many thanks

Dear Sir / Madam,

I popped into one of the drop in sessions in a dilapidated shop near the Baytree Centre and I had a good chat with one of your staff.

It was quite informal but I still have quite a lot of questions that have not been addressed despite my many queries in my 20 years of living in Brentwood as follows:

Why is there not 2 hours parking in Brentwood like Shenfield residents enjoy?

why are there no fast trains from Brentwood station despite it being the may residential area in the borough?

why no lift to platform 4 at Brentwood station?

why no foitpath to weald and throndon country parks?

why £5 to park in the above 2 parks?

why no benchmarking on parking charges compared to nearby towns like Upminster, Harold Hill, Hornchurch, Romford, Billericay, Basiodon, Grays, Epping, Lakeside for a start. For example Basildon and Romford have free parking on a Sunday so why doesn't Brentwood?

Why do you still charge to park in the evening when most towns nearby don't?

Why are you building houses on the car park in William Hunter Way, the car park is always full?

why are you building on Brentwood station car park, this will lose spaces and discourage use of the train station?

why is a green belt side at Honeypot Lane being built on? When the road is narrow and there is no bus route or doctor's surgery for these 250 new houses?

Why can't we have more Sunday bus routes in the district? There is no way of getting to Basildon, Lakeside or Southend and Chelmsford bus is only every 2 hours, Bishops Hall Estate every 2 hours and Hutton Circular every 2 hours, the only decent bus is the 498 to Romford still only every 30 minutes though!

Why can't Brentwoid folk use oyster cards on all the buses like you can on the train?

why is there a 4 zone difference between Brentwood and Harold Wood? It is only 3 miles and not worth a £1,000 a year for such a short journey, equally why is the fare from Brentwood to Shenfiekd for 1.5 miles £600 a year and to Harold Wood for 4.5 miles £1,600 a year, why do you allow TfL and the DfT to milk Brentwood residents to subsidise London people?

why don't the new crossrail trains have softer seats and loos on them?

why are there hardly any buses to get to Shenfield to access the 14 trains per hour? All the buses go to Brentwood station where there is only 6 an hour which are all slow and don't even go beyond Shenfield, annoyingly? !?!

why are 20 mph speed limits not enforced on residential roads?

why is there no parking enforcement on law breakers who park on double yellow lines after 6pm or all day Sunday, yet you choose to send out peaked cap people to put tickets on cars in the town centre car park, double standard or what?

i cannot access my garage due to inconsiderate oiks in the flats behing my house obstructing my garage, and the peaked cap gestapo say they are unable to do anything why?

Why no buses on the weald road to access weald country park and old macdonalds farm, and why no hail and ride bus between ongar road and weald road for non drivers and disabled?

why has the council done nothing to stop the re routing of 37 bus and cutting of other routes i.e, to Harlow, Lakeside, Stanstead Airport and Epping?

That is all folks!

Many thanks

1. Under Infrastructure Planning relating to schools it appears that responsibility is with Essex Council, this seems an abdication of responsibility. They may have final say but personally I think they are too remote from the ground level needs and have no confidence that they will get it right.
2. There is no mention of highways, with such an increase in housing Road connections need proper assessment. This applies to the whole plan. You only need to look at road traffic information during rush hour and school pick up times to see there is a 'peek time' issue.
3. Parking is a major issue. Add more houses at a distance from Ingatestone shops and the already critical situation is made worse when they want to get into the Village. Also parking issues for those needing the surgery, dentist and schools. Added to which there is only a half hourly bus with beginning/end of day restrictions. Those employed in the Village are already parking beside Seymour Field. During the day the Village is often clogged up.
4. My understanding of the Mountnessing end of the Village is that it is not just surface water issues but main drainage servicing the existing properties that is an issue.
5. Housing needs to be affordable. Ingatestone like its neighbours has a aging population, new houses built recently are not affordable for most young people. We need to attract them to the Village.
6. Houses must not be crammed in such that there is no onsite parking. There needs to be off road space for at least two cars, assuming that both occupants are at work locally. If there are children there should be space for an additional car. Parked cars need to be kept off the roads, many roads are narrow and a large proportion of the existing housing stock has insufficient space for cars which is often more suitable for an Austin 7 than a modern car (i.e. small garage or short fore court). Also there would need to be more parking at the station for outlying commuters or an improved public system that obviated the need to use a car to get to the station.
7. Noted that some developments are adjacent to the A12, the issue of noise pollution needs addressing in planning considerations.

1. Under Infrastructure Planning relating to schools it appears that responsibility is with Essex Council, this seems an abdication of responsibility. They may have final say but personally I think they are too remote from the ground level needs and have no confidence that they will get it right.
2. There is no mention of highways, with such an increase in housing Road connections need proper assessment. This applies to the whole plan. You only need to look at road traffic information during rush hour and school pick up times to see there is a 'peek time' issue.
3. Parking is a major issue. Add more houses at a distance from Ingatestone shops and the already critical situation is made worse when they want to get into the Village. Also parking issues for those needing the surgery, dentist and schools. Added to which there is only a half hourly bus with beginning/end of day restrictions. Those employed in the Village are already parking beside Seymour Field. During the day the Village is often clogged up.
4. My understanding of the Mountnessing end of the Village is that it is not just surface water issues but main drainage servicing the existing properties that is an issue.
5. Housing needs to be affordable. Ingatestone like its neighbours has a aging population, new houses built recently are not affordable for most young people. We need to attract them to the Village.
6. Houses must not be crammed in such that there is no onsite parking. There needs to be off road space for at least two cars, assuming that both occupants are at work locally. If there are children there should be space for an additional car. Parked cars need to be kept off the roads, many roads are narrow and a large proportion of the existing housing stock has insufficient space for cars which is often more suitable for an Austin 7 than a modern car (i.e. small garage or short fore court). Also there would need to be more parking at the station for outlying commuters or an improved public system that obviated the need to use a car to get to the station.
7. Noted that some developments are adjacent to the A12, the issue of noise pollution needs addressing in planning considerations.

Dear Council Leader,

I am a resident of Basildon Borough, a close neighbour to Brentwood, which will be affected by whatever local plan is adopted by Brentwood Council.

As such, I wish to object to your proposed ideas for the Local Plan as follows:

1. Building on Green Belt land. The Green Belt MUST always remain as such, and be protected, with no housing allowed. It is the lungs around Brentwood, Basildon and surrounding areas, but is also part of the lungs of the London metropolitan area.

National planning policy is clear that the Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and the need for housing does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

Our local Green Belt is a haven for many varieties of wildlife. To name a few, there are hedgehogs, badgers, foxes, frogs, toads, newts, dormice, slow worms, bats, owls, birds of prey and smaller birds, all of which depend on the undisturbed country areas. They can migrate and inter-breed through the Green Belt corridor, but if parts of it are taken away for housing, populations will become isolated and, only able to inter-breed within a small area, will die out.

2. Any building allowed on Green Belt land will constitute a precedent for the future, and once built on, the Green Belt can never be replaced.

3. Green Belt is also required for peoples' leisure pursuits and for the education of our children. To be able to get out into the local countryside is to improve mental health. The more growth there is in the town, the more these are needed.
There have to be facilities for children to play: There have to be parks, sports facilities, community centres. Not enough of these exist at present, and with land being taken up by housing, where are they to go?

4. All brownfield sites must be used before any Green Belt is even considered - and there are plenty of brownfield sites around London and around the country as a whole. London has a much greater capacity to absorb population increases than the towns and villages around South Essex.

5. The predicted increase in population of the area may well have slowed significantly since the result of the EU referendum in 2016. Net migration to the UK in 2017 showed the largest annual fall since records began. Therefore the predicted growth may not be necessary.

6. I see that a new school is proposed for Dunton Hills, but this would not be sufficient to accommodate the total influx of children and local schools and colleges are already full.

7. A large percentage of workers from Brentwood commute into London to work. Where are you going to find the extra capacity on the already overcrowded trains? How will you create the extra parking needed at the station? What new employment opportunities will there be locally?

8. The influx of people will require at least one new hospital, and GP surgeries and dentists are already overstretched. How is this going to be addressed and where are you going to build the new hospital?
Care homes and retirement homes will need to be built. The current facilities will not be sufficient for any influx.

9. Putting all new migrants to the area in one place, i.e. a housing estate, could create ghettoes and cause conflict.

10. A large increase in population of the borough will irrevocably change the character of the town. Expansion will see all the towns and villages merging into one huge connurbation and we will end up as just another suburb of London.

Dear Council Leader,

I am a resident of Basildon Borough, a close neighbour to Brentwood, which will be affected by whatever local plan is adopted by Brentwood Council.

As such, I wish to object to your proposed ideas for the Local Plan as follows:

1. Building on Green Belt land. The Green Belt MUST always remain as such, and be protected, with no housing allowed. It is the lungs around Brentwood, Basildon and surrounding areas, but is also part of the lungs of the London metropolitan area.

National planning policy is clear that the Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and the need for housing does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

Our local Green Belt is a haven for many varieties of wildlife. To name a few, there are hedgehogs, badgers, foxes, frogs, toads, newts, dormice, slow worms, bats, owls, birds of prey and smaller birds, all of which depend on the undisturbed country areas. They can migrate and inter-breed through the Green Belt corridor, but if parts of it are taken away for housing, populations will become isolated and, only able to inter-breed within a small area, will die out.

2. Any building allowed on Green Belt land will constitute a precedent for the future, and once built on, the Green Belt can never be replaced.

3. Green Belt is also required for peoples' leisure pursuits and for the education of our children. To be able to get out into the local countryside is to improve mental health. The more growth there is in the town, the more these are needed.
There have to be facilities for children to play: There have to be parks, sports facilities, community centres. Not enough of these exist at present, and with land being taken up by housing, where are they to go?

4. All brownfield sites must be used before any Green Belt is even considered - and there are plenty of brownfield sites around London and around the country as a whole. London has a much greater capacity to absorb population increases than the towns and villages around South Essex.

5. The predicted increase in population of the area may well have slowed significantly since the result of the EU referendum in 2016. Net migration to the UK in 2017 showed the largest annual fall since records began. Therefore the predicted growth may not be necessary.

6. I see that a new school is proposed for Dunton Hills, but this would not be sufficient to accommodate the total influx of children and local schools and colleges are already full.

7. A large percentage of workers from Brentwood commute into London to work. Where are you going to find the extra capacity on the already overcrowded trains? How will you create the extra parking needed at the station? What new employment opportunities will there be locally?

8. The influx of people will require at least one new hospital, and GP surgeries and dentists are already overstretched. How is this going to be addressed and where are you going to build the new hospital?
Care homes and retirement homes will need to be built. The current facilities will not be sufficient for any influx.

9. Putting all new migrants to the area in one place, i.e. a housing estate, could create ghettoes and cause conflict.

10. A large increase in population of the borough will irrevocably change the character of the town. Expansion will see all the towns and villages merging into one huge connurbation and we will end up as just another suburb of London.

Dear Council Leader,

I am a resident of Basildon Borough, a close neighbour to Brentwood, which will be affected by whatever local plan is adopted by Brentwood Council.

As such, I wish to object to your proposed ideas for the Local Plan as follows:

1. Building on Green Belt land. The Green Belt MUST always remain as such, and be protected, with no housing allowed. It is the lungs around Brentwood, Basildon and surrounding areas, but is also part of the lungs of the London metropolitan area.

National planning policy is clear that the Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, and the need for housing does not constitute an exceptional circumstance.

Our local Green Belt is a haven for many varieties of wildlife. To name a few, there are hedgehogs, badgers, foxes, frogs, toads, newts, dormice, slow worms, bats, owls, birds of prey and smaller birds, all of which depend on the undisturbed country areas. They can migrate and inter-breed through the Green Belt corridor, but if parts of it are taken away for housing, populations will become isolated and, only able to inter-breed within a small area, will die out.

2. Any building allowed on Green Belt land will constitute a precedent for the future, and once built on, the Green Belt can never be replaced.

3. Green Belt is also required for peoples' leisure pursuits and for the education of our children. To be able to get out into the local countryside is to improve mental health. The more growth there is in the town, the more these are needed.
There have to be facilities for children to play: There have to be parks, sports facilities, community centres. Not enough of these exist at present, and with land being taken up by housing, where are they to go?

4. All brownfield sites must be used before any Green Belt is even considered - and there are plenty of brownfield sites around London and around the country as a whole. London has a much greater capacity to absorb population increases than the towns and villages around South Essex.

5. The predicted increase in population of the area may well have slowed significantly since the result of the EU referendum in 2016. Net migration to the UK in 2017 showed the largest annual fall since records began. Therefore the predicted growth may not be necessary.

6. I see that a new school is proposed for Dunton Hills, but this would not be sufficient to accommodate the total influx of children and local schools and colleges are already full.

7. A large percentage of workers from Brentwood commute into London to work. Where are you going to find the extra capacity on the already overcrowded trains? How will you create the extra parking needed at the station? What new employment opportunities will there be locally?

8. The influx of people will require at least one new hospital, and GP surgeries and dentists are already overstretched. How is this going to be addressed and where are you going to build the new hospital?
Care homes and retirement homes will need to be built. The current facilities will not be sufficient for any influx.

9. Putting all new migrants to the area in one place, i.e. a housing estate, could create ghettoes and cause conflict.

10. A large increase in population of the borough will irrevocably change the character of the town. Expansion will see all the towns and villages merging into one huge connurbation and we will end up as just another suburb of London.

I wish to express my dismay at the proposed plans relating to the building of
new homes in our town, and particular those local to Viking Way. That said I do not believe we have the necessary infrastructure to cope with the proposals for any area within our town

We are all aware that as things stand the likes of Ongar Road and Doddinghurst Road resemble a car park through large parts of the day without these 250 more proposed homes that will displace the animals from the field behind Viking Way. We are continually told how air pollution should be controlled but these proposals will only exacerbate the problem within the town.

Also of course our local public services struggle to cope with the current numbers in the town as it is. Where is the infrastructure to cope with the
increase. How large will school classes need to be to accomodate the obvious
large influx of additional children.

As an example I am currently waiting for an audiology appointment at Crescent Drive Community Hospital. It equates to a three week wait,and of course we all know how long it can take to see your general practioner.

It beggars belief that consideration is be given to undertake this expansion
when we struggle to cope with the current numbers residing in the town.
And of course I have not even mentioned the issues relating to drainage
infrastructure and the like.

To conclude I would urge you to decline ALL these local planning proposals
in the interests of your residents.

Page 3 Para. 5: While this document is primarily a consultation on sites, we have also updated our vision, strategic objectives and spatial strategy to reflect progress made on the technical evidence and review of representations. Comment/Objection: Whilst there may have been a review of representations, there has been no formal, detailed response to representations made by PLNRA since March 2016. Page 4 Para. 7: Evidence in its broadest sense means anything that informs the plan-making process, including the Sustainability Appraisal, Duty to Cooperate discussion, consultation responses, and technical evidence. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence in any section of the Draft Local Plan that PLNRA responses to the plan have been taken into account and that detailed sustainability and technical evidence submitted have been analysed and given appropriate consideration. Page 4 Para. 8: A Consultation Statement detailing previous representations has been published alongside this document. Comment/Objection: There are various references to previous historic consultation exercises undertaken, but an up-to-date document detailing the 2016 representations has not been found yet, other than reference to the numbers of responses made. Page 4/5 Para 9: Support for protecting the Green Belt and environmental assets, and building upon brownfield land only were strong themes in the consultation feedback. A number of stakeholders objected to the Dunton Hills Garden Village in principle and the extent of development along the A127 corridor. A wide range of comments were also raised on the need for additional plan evidence. Comment/Objection: Sites 044/178 are greenfield protected urban space sites. The Dunton Hills development is mentioned specifically, but the Priests Lane sites, which attracted a high proportion of objections, are not mentioned. Page 6 Para 14: In arriving at a list of preferred site allocations, we have developed a site assessment process. This is robust, balanced and wide-ranging in terms of technical evidence material for each allocated and discounted site. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence as to why sites 044/178 are preferred sites other than, presumably, they are available. The site assessment (Page 72) is shallow and weak. There is no evidence of robustness or balance. Page 6 Para 15: A key part of the evidence base is the Sustainability Appraisal (SA)...Its role is to promote sustainable development...The SA allows us to consider opportunities to improve environmental, social and economic conditions in the local area and identify how to mitigate the impact of development. Comment/Objection: To what extent is there a specific Sustainabilty Appraisal of sites 044/178? How will environmental, social and economic conditions be improved in Priests Lane and how will the impact of development be mitigated? There is no evidence provided as answers to these questions. Page 6 Para 17: Refers to a Habitats Regulations Assessment screening that has been undertaken for Local Plan sites. Comment/Objection: What does it say regarding sites 044/178? It is not mentioned in the preferred site statement. Page 7 Para 18a: delivering the right infrastructure at the right time: ensuring that infrastructure to support new housing and employment opportunities, such as schools, health and transport are delivered at an appropriate scale and in a timely manner. Comment/Objection: Mere verbiage with no detail, although statistics on schools and local surgeries do appear later. Page 7 Para 18c: supporting high quality design...helping to minimise the impact of new infrastructure on local character and enhancing areas through innovative design which positively responds to local heritage and environments. Comment/Objection: No evidence presented as to how this might be achieved. What is meant by 'innovative design' that would be in keeping with the Priests Lane environment? What design strategies are profit-making developers likely to adopt? Page 7 Para 18d: enhancing green infrastructure networks: improving the quality, range and connectiveness of the Borough's natural green assets. Comment/Objection: How will this will be helped by removing a protected greenfield site? Page 7 Para 19: refers to the Draft Infrastructure Plan that is being continually updated. Comment/Objection: What is this? Page 11 Inset: The Borough will continue to thrive with a high-quality network of green infrastructure, parks and new connected green corridors, providing cycling and walking opportunities for all.....Brentwood will grow sustainably with new development directed to urban brownfield opportunity sites, well planned urban extensions. Comment/Objection: Except for Priests Lane, presumably, since we are targeted to lose a green space and have a highway that is conducive neither to cycling nor walking, but a connecting 'rat-run between Shenfield and Brentwood traversed by high speed traffic. Page 12 Para 28 SO1: maximise sustainable growth opportunities within our built-up areas and on brownfield sites. Page 12 Para 28 SO2: direct development growth in locations well served by existing and proposed local services and facilities. Page 12 Para 28 SO5: manage development growth to that capable of being accommodated by existing or proposed infrastructure, services and facilities. Comment/Objection: What represents 'sustainable' growth? Why are sites 044/178 the only identified greenfield sites? What evidence is identified for sites 044/178 being well served by existing infrastructure, local services and facilities - a set of statistics about schools and surgeries does not equal appropriate services? What proposals are there to enhance services? Page 12 Para 28 SO6: Plan for housing...creating inclusive, balanced, sustainable communities. Comment/Objection: What precisely does this mean for Priests Lane, one of the highest value housing areas in the borough? Page 13 Para 28 SO16: Protect and enhance valuable landscapes and the natural and historic environments. Page 13 Para 28 SO17: Establish a rich connected network of Green infrastructure across the Borough and reaching beyond. Comment/Objection: Developing sites 044/178 is clearly contrary to both the above objectives. Page 13 Para 28 SO19: Secure the delivery of essential infrastructure, including education, health, recreation and community facilities to support new development growth throughout its delivery. Comment/Objection: There is no evidence to confirm that education and health facilities will be delivered, given that the expansion of Hogarth School is to meet current need, whilst there is no evidence to support any view that surgeries can and will meet any substantial increase in demand - statistics do not often equate to reality. Page 13 Para 28 SO20: support self-build housing in sustainable locations across the Borough. Comment/Objection: What precisely does this mean? Which locations? Safeguards against blight? Page 13 Para 28 SO21: Improve public transport infrastructure and ensure development sites are well connected to bus and/or rail connections Page 13 Para 28 SO22: Improve cycling and walking facilities across the Borough and establish a grid or network of green transport corridors. Comment/Objection: Priests Lane is too narrow for public transport; the distance to buses and stations is not likely to reduce reliance on cars. Priests Lane is poorly served by pavements, which are too narrow and situated on alternate sides of the road. Any improvements are likely to narrow the width of the road below national guidelines that the Lane hardly meets now and actually transgresses in some places. Cycling in Priests Lane is almost suicidal and is rarely in evidence!! Page 14 Para 31The spatial strategy continues to focus upon the sequential use of land which prioritises using brownfield first and then considers growth in settlements in terms of their relative sustainability linked to services and facilities. This approach is in line with government guidance and best practice. The release of Green Belt land should only be considered after all sustainably located, suitable, available and deliverable brownfield sites have been identified as allocations. Comment/Objection: Again we have to ask - why sites 044/178, given their denotation? There is no evidence presented about their sustainability and likely required links to services and facilities. Which sites have been discounted as alternatives to these 2 sites? Pages 18/19 Paras 41/42: However, importantly due to the worsening of the affordability ratio in Brentwood and the increased costs of rental levels, conclusions identify the need for a reasonable upwards market signal adjustment. Compared to most of Essex, the borough is much less affordable, homes are more expensive, and now less affordable than the last housing boom. The degree of market signal uplift is a matter of professional judgment and evidence indicates a 30% uplift above the new 280 dwellings per annum baseline, plus a small contingency of 6% should new official projections indicate a slightly different position to that forecasted. 42. In summary, using the minimum revised net dwelling baseline figure (280) plus combined market signal adjustment and contingency adjustment of 36%, this leaves an objectively assessed housing need of circa 380 dwellings per annum or 7,600 dwellings across the plan period (2013-33). The revised housing need from 362 per annum to 380 per annum across the plan period (20 years) equates to a total dwelling increase of 360 additional units.'. The updated SHMA is published as part of this consultation. Comment/Objection: I am not qualified to analyse the Housing Need statistics and hence assume them to be accurate. However, what are concerning are the admissions that housing and rental costs in Brentwood are high and less affordable, that projections suggest that perhaps only 280 dwellings are required per annum and that, therefore, a market signal uplift of 30% plus a contingency of 6% should be accepted, raising the annual build to 380. The statisticians amongst us will correct me, but am I to assume that the increased build per annum (which is substantial) is to do with increasing supply in the hope of reducing house/rental prices? This would actually be insane if the projected demand does not, and was never meant to, meet supply. Page 22 Para 55: The Council received a number of representations on the Draft Local Plan (2016) suggesting that there was a lack of information about the site assessment methodology and overall process. A summary of the site assessment process undertaken is detailed in Figure 7, with a detailed site assessment methodology technical note available alongside this consultation. This work is based upon best practice and is considered to provide a robust framework for site assessment and selection. NPPF Footnote: To be considered deliverable, sites should be available now, offer suitable location for development now,..be achievable... delivered within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable; to be considered developable, sites should be in a suitable location for housing development. Site options will be assessed in terms of their impact on a number of primary factors, including flood risk, Green Belt, landscape and highways....impact on historic assets, ecological designations, utilities, education and health facilities. All sites that have passed stages1 and 2 (site selection) will be appraised using objective (WHERE POSSIBLE) site selection criteria. This stage will identify any significant negative effects THAT MAY REQUIRE MITIGATION (my capitals) if a site is subsequently put forward for allocation. This study will identify whether proposed areas/sites/types of sites are viable and deliverable in the plan period. If evidence cannot give this confidence then it may be necessary to revise draft local plan policies and/or go back a stage and find alternative sites. This approach attempts to maximise brownfield redevelopment opportunities and support growth within sustainable locations. Comment/Objection: We need to review the technical note, given that the assessment of sites 044/178 is so weak. Note there is no comment in this revised plan Site Assessment of 044/178 referring to flood risk, landscape, highways, ecology, utilities, whilst the statistical references to Hogarth School and surgeries are questionable. Furthermore, if the process is so robust, why should site selection criteria not be objective? Why should a site that does not meet suitable selection criteria receive mitigation? With regard to Page 22 Para 55 we could conclude that there is a change of attitude here compared to that we have encountered in meetings with Louise McKinley and other councillors/representatives. Previously we have been told the entire Plan would be rejected by inspectors/government if sites 044/178 were not included as available sites. Para 55 implies this may no longer be the case and that sites that fail to meet development criteria could be discounted. Alternatively, we could interpret Para 55 as meaning that if sites 044/178 failed to meet the criteria, alternative reasons will be found to force development of the sites!! Page 25 Para 59: Brownfield Land within Brentwood Urban Area/Settlement Boundary 1,152 net homes / 13.94% of total build. Greenfield Land within Brentwood Urban Area/Settlement Boundary 95 net homes / 1.15% of total build Overall total build 8263 (100%) - Allocation total 6154 (74.48% of overall total). Comment/Objection: Whilst the net homes allocation at Priests Lane appears small taken as a total of planned building across Brentwood, the actual percentage of net build (Brentwood Urban Area Greenfield) at sites 044/178 compared to Brentwood Urban Area (Brownfield) net build is 8.25% which is a much higher percentage of net build in the Urban Area net build category, bearing in mind that the Priests Lane sites are the only identified greenfield sites in the entire plan/Borough. Furthermore, whilst comment on the planned 36% uplift on required housing has been made earlier, it is now clear this represents an net uplift of 2109 dwellings over the life of the plan, much of which would be expected to be built within 5 years of granted planning permission. These 2109 dwellings would then be built in the hope of driving down house/rental prices. Consequently, Priests Lane would be paying a rather high environmental price for the sake of an economic demand/supply house price lottery. Page 29 Para 64d: Work is progressing on....providing further design, layout and land use direction for the sites at Priests Lane and Honeypot Lane Comment/Objection: There is no detail provided about this and hence its meaning is unknown. Page 37 Para 77: For the year 2016/17, the net capacity of non-independent primary schools in the Borough was 6,032 pupils across 24 schools[11]. In the immediate future (2017/18) the net capacity of non-independent primary schools will increase to 6,222 pupils mainly driven by expanding Hogarth Primary School to a two-form entry (2FE) with 420 pupil capacity. Comment/Objection: The plan admits that the expansion of Hogarth Primary School will deal with predicted increased enrolments in 2017-18. It will then have a surplus capacity of 61 places by 2021-22. However, the Development Plan predicts a shortfall of places at Long Ridings Primary School of 217 places and Larchwood Primary School of 55 places - a total shortfall of 272 places. Since there is no mention of any further expansion at these 2 schools and given their relative proximity to Hogarth Primary School, it could be suggested that some of the need for places will be met by Hogarth. In this scenario further vehicle movements can be predicted in Priests Lane, increasing the danger to children that already exists. We should also recognize the notorious difficulty in predicting school place demand year-on-year (especially in areas of new housing - 95 homes could generate 30 children or 150, the number is unpredictable), the sudden inability of schools to meet demand and the unexpected frailty of schools where demand falls away. Page 45 Para 96: The Council will be looking to support the further development of the Endeavour School to provide facilities for sixth form students. This education requirement will need to be built into the detailed layout and masterplanning for the proposed housing site at land at Priests Lane (044/178). Comment/Objection: No detail is provided. What is clear is that expansion of Endeavour School, which is to be welcomed, is at odds with a sizeable housing development that will aggravate the health and safety obligations to already vulnerable children. Page 48 Paras 103 (stats) and 104: Current infrastructure services improvements alone are unlikely to address the significant patient pressures that may occur through housing growth in the Borough during the lifetime of the plan. Comment/Objection: If we only count forecast new patients at the nearest surgeries to Sites 044/178 - Rockleigh Court, Mount Avenue, The New Surgery and Tile House, they number 1023+1025+779+782 = 3609 respectively ( or a 34.46% increase). The average UK occupancy of each dwelling is 3.7; 95 houses could generate an additional population of 352 residents requiring medical services, i.e. 9.75% of the additional forecast new patients. It is well known that obtaining appointments at these surgeries is currently difficult or involves lengthy wait times, so the problems experienced by Priests Lane residents will only be exacerbated, a fact further aggravated by the local age profile. Page 50 Para 107: Brentwood is an attractive business location with a high quality environment .... and good transport links. Comment/Objection: Many local businesses have struggled to survive in a high rent and rates environment. Vacant sites at the Baytree Centre bear this out, along with the proliferation of food outlets in Brentwood and Shenfield High Streets. Brentwood High Street is mainly beset by fast food chains, hairdressers and charity shops - the recipe for High Street decline. As for travel to London, the current cost of a train season ticket from Shenfield is £3000. If the commuter wishes to go on from Liverpool Street to central London, the cost rises to £4000 and car parking is an extra £1000. Who exactly will be able to afford to live in Brentwood, commute to London and pay a mortgage for an affordable house in the borough, which is currently calculated at £440,000? Page 52 Para 110: The updated economic evidence...considers a number of evaluation factors including travel to work areas, commuting flows...and strategic transport routes. Comment/Objection: Priests Lane is a major traffic flow capillary connecting Shenfield to Brentwood and vice versa. As such it serves as a busy conduit to the A12, A127/A128 and the M25. It is historically and actually a lane that is poorly served by alternating narrow pavements and does not meet many national highway criteria nor acceptable health and safety standards. This highly unsatisfactory situation will only be worsened by the likely increased traffic coming from the central Brentwood developments and Officers Meadow (the need for which is understood). Priests Lane is not suited to serve increased traffic levels. (Included site plan for sites 178 and 044). Comment/Objection: The problems with access onto Priests Lane are not mentioned. The reference to secondary access via Bishop Walk is not supportable, given the nature/width of the road is only sufficient for the few houses it serves. The references to contextual analysis, informing typologies, scale, materiality and landscaping are not explained and are, hence, meaningless. There is a brief reference to traffic problems (but these are viewed cursorily as 'localised' - surely all traffic could be defined as localised!!) . All other myriad objections to sites 044/178, often highly technical and evidenced, relating to the LDP issued in January 2016 have been ignored, as they have been for the whole of the intervening period to date. The only mantra we have received is that the land 'must' be developed for the sake of the Plan - which has now been disproved. The current designation of the sites as Protected Urban Open Space is acknowledged.

I object to the proposal to build so many new houses in the Brentwood area. The extra traffic that will be generated will be far too much for the area. The A127 and A128 will be impossible. Brentwood town will be gridlocked at rush hour and school times. The air pollution will be dangerous. All the extra families will need school places, GPs and hospitals. There does not appear to be any proposal to build a new hospital or extend Basildon,Queens or Broomfield. Without proper infrastructure to support the new homes Brentwood will become a 'no go' area.

Firstly I strongly object to the building of homes or anything else on Green Belt Land anywhere.
Theresa May recently said the 'Protecting the Green Belt is paramount.'
Our Green Belt is the buffer we need between towns/villages and the countryside. We need open spaces, even if they have been temporarily utilised by nurseries etc. They are still open spaces.

My husband and I live in Ingatestone at the Mountnessing end of the 'village' where all of the proposed sites are situated. I feel that the impact of quite a large number of new homes will cause considerable problems with the nearby roads and junctions with the A12.
Traffic moves faster than it should along Roman Road and the introduction of many hundreds of new car drivers driving to and from the proposed new homes and employment site will be a danger.

You will say there would be speed slowing measures, but the speed limits are ignored now and would be in the future. People drive far too fast and recklessly, proven by the idiot who some years ago drove down the exit road from the A12 from Chelmsford across Roman Road and literally flew into the front garden of a house in Roman Road. As extreme example, but valid nonetheless.

As an Ingatestone resident I am particularly concerned about the impact the recent and proposed future housing developments will have on our doctor's surgery. At the moment I feel the doctors, along with their support staff, are doing a valiant job of caring for their patients, but it getting more difficult to get a quick appointment. I find we are waiting far too long to see if any medical problem 'goes away' before asking for an appointment. By then it is a much more serious matter and we get an immediate appointment as it has become what the receptionists determine is an emergency. The problem becomes more serious and takes longer to cure. Not cost effective for the NHS.

At the moment the surgery is responsible for new patients up to the McDonalds roundabout. This includes the development called The Elms at Mountnessing.

If you put too heavy a strain on our doctors we will lose them. They will move away to another less stressful surgery or retire.

Unfortunately Mountnessing has no support infrastructure of it's own.
It's residents usually come into Ingatestone for health and schooling etc.

There should be more services provided in Mountnessing itself, not expect Ingatestone to pick up the considerable slack.

At the moment parking in Ingatestone is becoming difficult. At a doctor's appointment recently my husband, who walks slowly with a walking stick, had to park in the Market Place and walk to the surgery.
That shouldn't happen. He has a Blue Badge but there were no parking spaces at all. More development will mean more cars and lorries, making it even harder to find a parking space.

In conclusion:

1. There should be no building of anything on Green Belt Land.

2. The proposed new housing in Ingatestone - 128, 079A and 106 and the
new employment 079C will dangerously overburden Roman Road and
the areas around the A12 ingress and exit slip roads.

3. Our GP surgery should not be expected to absorb the considerable number of patients from the present new builds and your proposed new builds in the future.

4. Parking which is already a problem will be considerable worse.

If you adhere to the premise of number one, which was implemented for many excellent reasons many years ago, numbers two and three are unnecessary.

Yours faithfully,

I respond to the Local Development Plan Consultation. I have looked at the proposed development areas that are set out in the Plan. The plan envisages significant additional housing in the area. No mention seems to be made as to the type of housing proposed. I have to say that, in my view, what is required is affordable rental homes and that would be best achieved in the form of Council House developments. I would urge the Council to consider doing this particularly in the larger areas, scubas east of Shenfield and in the sites around the A127. But coming to the plan itself, where I feel that it falls short is that it does not contain any infrastructure planning to support the increase in population that the developments will bring. Most of the developments are 'out of town' which will bring significantly increased traffic and there is nothing that I can see to improve the roads and to remove bottlenecks. The roads are already overloaded. Furthermore, there is nothing that I can see planned to create additional parking both for commuters and shoppers. As it is, existing car parks are already full. What is worse is that your plan actually proposes to use existing car parks for housing, particularly in Brentwood where these car parks are, in my experience, fully utilised. Until such time as replacement and increased parking has been dealt with I would urge the Council not to develop the area further. Of course, increasing housing will not only change the character of the area but will bring consequential air and noise pollution. Crossrail will inevitably bring such of that and I would urge the Council to quantify the impact of Crossrail first before embarking on such an ambitious housing project. And finally, I would urge the Council to ensure that most of the housing development that does go ahead is for truly affordable housing which, in my opinion, has to be Council rental property. We need to try and bring a younger population into the area and this can only be done if the properties are both affordable and rental ones.

I understand from the Herongate & Ingrave Parish Council that the proposed Local Development Plan does not currently encroach on my local area. It is nonetheless extremely important that any proposed or future settlement area within the Borough of Brentwood is more than capable of fully supporting these developments.

Having lived in the Borough for over 40 years it is already apparent that property development throughout this period has significantly increased the number of residents, placing additional strain on the Health Service, other Public Services and Schools for all age groups. The number of private and commercial vehicles has increased enormously, greatly increasing traffic density and prolonging even the simplest of local road journeys and making travel on local A roads and M25 much more difficult than they were ever planned or designed for. Even parking facilities within the Borough are increasingly becoming a rarer and more expensive commodity.

It is therefore of concern to note that within the proposal there are potentially 4 current Car Park Sites ref: 002, 039, 040 and 102 which will be lost for development. Although, apparently providing a dwelling yield of up to 476 homes, where is it proposed the thousands of residents currently using these essential parking areas on a regular basis are supposed to park their vehicles while conducting their daily business?

It is also alarming to see from the LDP Consultation documents that the number of dwellings to be built on Green Belt Land (1876) already slightly exceeds those proposed to built on Non Green Belt Land (1827). It should also be noted that the Developable Areas by Hectares which are 63.16 and 27.49 respectively, clearly show that the number of homes per hectare are significantly lower on Green Belt Land. Therefore to preserve our precious Green Belt for as long as possible, we should be seeking to proportionally reduce the number of Green Belt Sites and
significantly increase the dwelling density on those selected Green Belt Sites designated for development. Those remaining (non selected) Green Belt Sites can then be preserved for any possible future development from 2033 onwards.
What must be avoided is land speculators and property developers profiting unduly from Green Belt Sites offered for redevelopment. Whatever route is finally taken it is absolutely imperative that the conservation and protection of the natural and historic environment within the borough is preserved for the benefit of the next
and future generations.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

I would like to raise objections to the new proposed housing developments in all of the above areas.

I am a resident of Kelvedon Hatch and I have lived in this wonderful small village now for 15 years, and my parents have lived here for 30 years. Having read the Development Plan, it brings complete and utter sadness to us, as it is evident that what is planned is not taking into consideration the complete whole impact on us or more widely the UK as a whole.

Most houses are bought as couples because the pricing of them cannot be afforded by anyone else. I doubt that first time buyers would be able to purchase them. If you take into consideration the new build houses by The Eagle pub these started off at £610k and then they were only reduced down to £560k when people were not buying them.

Also, the doctors services would be impacted by +4% this is completely and utterly wrong. If you take into consideration the number of planned houses which is 169. How can +4% be a calculation without knowing how many people will live in those houses. Again if couples by the houses or families, 169 becomes 338 people. Then add in the families, most families average two children per house, so before you know you are looking at an extra 500 to 600 people in these houses. The main doctors surgery for all of the above listed areas is the Deal Tree Centre, where they have four doctors and they are supported by some locums. With the additional people joining the area, and with how they currently operate it will be impossible to get any doctor's appointments, which will then impact the other services ie 111 and walk in centres etc.

Next is schools. There are three main schools in the area, with the additional children and the funding to schools being cut back each year, how are they expected to educate to a high standard? The classes currently are all at full capacity and if I take my daughters school into consideration they do not have the ability to add extra classes for certain years etc, as they do not have enough buildings to facilitate this.

The roads are terrible. Whenever complaints are made about sorting them out, it takes months for them to be put right. If couples or families move into these homes we will have more and more cars/vans on the roads in the area, which will also put a toll on the Ambulance/Police and Fire Services. Has this been taken into consideration? Not to mention the pollution levels of all these vehicles in the area. What will be done to keep pollution and noise down?

Another issue which is much wider than this Council is that we are leaving the EU. People that do not have the correct visa's, nationalisation etc will be forced to leave. With this in mind, it will free up lots of housing, which could potentially be revamped. Surely it is easier redoing a house that is already built rather than starting from scratch etc. Why is our green belt being taken away when this could change the UK considerably. No further houses should be built until this alone is sorted out. Because once they are built, no one will tear them down and put the green belt back.

I would like you to please confirm that my objections have been raised and will be noted against the new housing and planning consultation.

When the East of England New Homes policy was introduced to Brentwood residents we were asked to comment on it. We were informed how many new homes were being proposed for Brentwood and asked what number we thought would be appropriate. My pragmatic, and I believe fair, answer was as many as brown fill sites in our area would accommodate. Since then my preference for building on brown fill and other sites, situated in our town, has reversed for two reasons - the first, a negative one, the second, a positive. Four or five years ago, following the development of the Highwood and Little Highwood hospital sites, one of the two single handed G.P.s working on there retired leaving 1500 patients without a doctor. I was at this time, and continue to be, a member of the patient participation group at my doctors' practice in the town. I learnt that my practice had offered to take over the practice on the Highwood Hospital site provided it was not out of pocket, ie the PPG (as it was at the time) would pay for the rent and upkeep of the surgery and for staffing it, as another G.P. would have to be employed - the PPG refused to accept the costs insisting that the patients could be absorbed onto the lists of local G.P.s. Our practice manager contacted our P.P.G. members, as a matter of urgency, to ask us if we should close our list to new patients, as the other local practices had. With there being a two to three week wait for a non-urgent G.P. appointment, even then, the answer was a resounding yes. It was only then, when 1500 patients were bereft of a G.P., that the P.P.G. agreed to the terms offered by my practice. I find this attitude to the provision of an important local service alarming and I am fearful for the wellbeing of the residents of Brentwood if new homes are built within close proximity of the town, whether it be on brown fill sites or other areas, as currently proposed. It goes without saying that this could be the tip of the iceberg as other important services such as schools could suffer from local overdevelopment. This makes no mention of the obvious increase in traffic that we have seen and will have to endure further, if these developments go ahead and because of the stop/start nature of the vehicles in these traffic jams, the increase in pollution and resulting health problems. On a positive note, I was very impressed with the plans for the Dunton Garden Village. With its integrated infrastructure this will offer tremendous advantages, in so many ways, over developing the town and its nearby environs. One small example of this would be the provision of locality shops and I believe it is interesting to note that, despite being enlarged, the Sainsburys car park still gets very full and can be quite a dangerous place both for drivers and pedestrians. I strongly believe that a number of satellite developments, such as Dunton Garden Village, will offer the best solution to the need for new homes in our area despite these settlements having to be developed on green belt land which I understand some of the proposed sites are anyway. I am also confident that fewer people would be affected by this type of development as these sites will be in less populated areas and, because of their self reliance, there would be less traffic coming into Brentwood which would be a big benefit for so many residents living in and close to the town. There will no doubt be a great deal of "nimbyism" over any proposal, but for my part my wife and I have often discussed our indifference to the field between where we live in Viking Way and the A12 being built on as, on the one hand we would lose some open land, which I believe was at one time designated as green belt, but buildings on it would shelter us from some of the road noise from the A12 - this has been measured and found to be above an acceptable level but in these times of austerity nothing has been done about it. On the subject though, it does strike me as being a strange choice for development as nine or ten years ago, when Brentwood Council was charged with finding sites for travellers (I believe the scheme was dropped following a change of government), the field in question was under consideration for such a site but it was removed from the list because it was considered to be unsafe for travellers to live there as it represented a health hazard owing to the levels of pollution from the A12. To summarise, the planners could follow what seems to be happening at present and develop the area in and around Brentwood town even further, squeezing out a large number of green areas, creating an infrastructure pushed beyond its capacity and creating traffic chaos along with the accompanying health risks from pollution. The alternative would be radical and would represent "thinking outside the box". It would upset fewer residents, in total, and give rise to less of the problems highlighted above, giving rise to all residents finding Brentwood a more pleasant place to live compared with the alternative. I firmly believe developing more sites like the Dunton Garden Village would be the best choice for Brentwood and, more importantly, its residents. I guess it comes down to the quality of life that it is considered appropriate for Brentwood residents, old and new. This could be maintained for those currently living in Brentwood and a really good quality of life could be afforded to the newcomers. Alternatively, it could be diminished for all of us.

A lot of people on the estate now have kids who live at home, I believe everyone now owns 2 or 3 cars. As a result the cars now overflow onto the street. This has made parking a problem but the issue isn't that people in the nearby offices park here and walk to their office. This can be seen by looking at the parking in the morning, during the day and in the evening. You'll see mostly the same set of cars there the whole day. The issue is one that cannot be solved easily, the roads are narrow due to when the estate was originally built, people don't use their garages for the cars and people tend to drive a little fast down the narrow roads. I think another thing that makes people unhappy is that parents drive to Bucklers Court, then walk their kids to Warley County Primary school through the pathway. None of these issues can really be resolved through parking restrictions and I think the end result will be people asking for several permits and then I think the same problem will exist, presumably overstretched parking attendants and residents getting fines.

Page 21 para 48: why is there a need to accommodate these people? Can you confirm how the Council tax payment is controlled. Indeed do they pay Council tax?

Page 49 para 105: this is too vague. GP facilities are massively over stretched. I have had experience of waiting over 3 weeks for an appointment.

General: I cannot see any reference to roads or trains. The A127 and surrounding roads are choked with traffic and must have a dramatic impact on pollution. C2C trains are packed during commuting hours. What engagement have you had with C2C?

See attached.

INTRODUCTION: Paras 1 To 9. Object In November 2017, the Department for Communities and Local Government wrote to the Council expressing its concern about the lack of progress being made towards the adoption of a 2004 Act Local Plan, and putting it on notice that the Borough was on a short list of councils where Government intervention, in the local plan, process was being considered. Whilst there is an imperative on the Council to progress, and adopt, a new Local Plan as quickly as is practicably possible - and the publication of the Preferred Site Allocations document is, therefore, welcomed - a general concern has to be raised that, in its attempt to progress matters as quickly as possible, much of the evidence base, upon which the spatial strategy and individual site allocations are based, are still a 'work in progress' and have yet to be made public, in anything but a draft summary form. In this respect, it is particularly noted that: The Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA) has yet to be published. The Site Assessment Methodology and Summary of Outcomes (SAMSO) January 2018 document remains a 'working draft', with only a brief summary, as to the reasons why potential sites have been rejected, having been published (there is no detailed breakdown or analysis available setting out how sites have been scored / ranked in accordance with the assessment criteria). The Green Belt study, which should underpin and inform all potential Green Belt releases, has not yet been completed, with 'working drafts' only currently being available in respect of Part 1 and 2 assessments. The important Part 3 and 4 assessments (individual sites and review of Green Belt boundaries) do not appear to have been commenced. In the absence of key 'evidence base' documents, it is difficult to comment on the merits, or otherwise, of any of the proposed site allocations. It is also difficult to make a comparison between the respective merits of sites rejected by the Council and those put forward in the Preferred Site Allocations document. This is a fundamental weakness in the Council's approach and the publication of the Preferred Site Allocations document is premature until more progress has been made in respect of the underlying evidence base. As a result, a general objection has to be made to the timing, and content, of the Preferred Site Allocations document and, in particular, to all proposed Green Belt releases. Whilst it is undoubtedly the case that significant Green Belt land will need to be released, in order to meet the development needs of the Borough up to 2033, the Council is not yet in a position to make a meaningful comparative assessment of the merits, or otherwise, of potential Green Belt sites.PART 1: VISION - Paras 26 and 27. Object Whilst the Council's vision for the Borough is generally supported, the evidence base (for the reasons identified above) does not yet support the conclusion that the Dunton Hills Garden Village is the most sustainable way of meeting the development needs of the Borough up to 2033 (and beyond). It is particularly noted that the 'Garden Village' strategy scores poorly in respect of a General Support The Council's decision to revise housing need, from 362 dwellings per annum to 380 dwellings per annum, is consistent with the latest population data and best practice guidance and is generally welcomed. This section of the document does not, however, explain how the Borough Council has, either explicitly or implicitly, taken into account the requirements of Paragraph 47 of the NPPF (e.g. the 5% and 20% buffers). Whilst Paragraph 43 notes the DCLG's recent consultation on producing a standardised methodology for calculating local housing need (a matter which is also set out in the recent consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF), which could increase Brentwood's need to 455 dwellings per annum, or by 1,480 units over the Plan Period, the proposed way of dealing with this (bringing forward the development of Dunton Hills Garden Village earlier in the local plan period, is not considered adequate. The Borough Council either needs to commit to allocating additional sites (in this emerging Local Plan) or to undertaking an early review (immediately after the Plan has been adopted). PART 1: HOUSING SUPPLY - Paras 51 to 56 and Figure 7. General Comment Paragraph 55 notes that the Council received a number of representations, in relation to the 2016 Draft Local Plan, to the effect that there was a lack of information about the site assessment methodology and overall SHLAA / HELAA. As identified above, this situation has not changed, such that it is not possible, on the basis of the information published on the Council's website, to make a meaningful assessment of the merits of the proposed site allocations or the sites which have been rejected by the Council. PART 1: SUMMARY OF PROPOSED HOUSING LED ALLOCATIONS - Paragraphs 57 to 68 and Figure 8. Object Again, the main criticism of this part of the Preferred Site Allocations document, relates to the lack of information, in the evidence base, to support the various figures, and assumptions, set out therein. In particular, there is little information to back up the figures for 'completions', 'extant permissions', 'forecasts forward' and 'windfalls' as set out in Figure 8 - Housing Growth. PART 1: SETTLEMENT HIERARCHY AND ACCOMMODATING GROWTH - Paragraph 75 and Figure 14. Support The proposed settlement hierarchy and, in particular, the classification of Doddinghurst and Kelvedon Hatch as Large Villages / Village Service Centres is supported. For the reasons set out above, however, the position regarding Dunton Hills and West Thorndon has to be reserved although, it is accepted, that if these sites do come forward, as strategic allocations, then they should be Village Service Centres. PART 1: INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING - Para 76. Support The need to plan for the level of infrastructure, needed to support housing and economic growth, is fully supported. PART 2: HOUSING SITES Object The Council's 'sequential approach' to the identification of housing sites is, for the reasons set out above, generally supported, as is the identification of those sites, as set out in Figure 9: Proposed Housing-Led Allocations, which fall within the following categories:- 1. 'Brownfield' land. 2. 'Greenfield' land within the Brentwood Urban Area and other Settlement Boundaries. However, and because of the paucity of the evidence base, and the fact that work on the HELAA and Green Belt Study (Parts 3 and 4) is still ongoing, it is difficult to make an assessment as to the merits of the proposed Green Belt releases and / or the comparative merits of the sites which the Borough Council has discounted. Whilst the 'sequential approach' to the release of Green Belt sites is supported, a holding objection has to be made to those allocations falling within the following categories: 3. Sites on the edge of the Main Settlements. 4. Sites on the edge of Village Service Centres and Larger Villages. 5. Strategic Allocations. Indeed, and until the evidence base has progressed further, and, in particular, until the drafts of Parts 3 and 4 of the Green Belt study are available, the Borough Council cannot be certain that a strategic Green Belt release is needed, or, if it is, how much development it needs to deliver within the local plan period. Accordingly, and at this stage, a holding objection has to be made in respect of all potential Green Belt releases. PART 2: HOUSING SITES - FAILURE TO INDENTIFY LAND AT ASHWELLS LODGE, BLACKMORE ROAD, DODDINHURST AS A HOUSING ALLOCATION. Object An objection is raised to Part 2 of the Preferred Site Allocations document, as it fails to identify Land at Ashwells Lodge, Blackmore Road, Doddinghurst (Site Ref: 188) as a potential housing allocation. Appendix 6, of the Site Selection Methodology and Summary of Outcomes: Working Draft (SSMSO:WD) document indicates that the site has been discounted because of its potential 'Green Belt impact'. The SSMSO:WD does not, however, quantify, for any site (whether a draft allocation or discounted site) potential impacts and it is, therefore, impossible to draw any conclusions as to the merits of any particular site and / or whether the Council's decision is 'sound'. Ashwells Lodge lies adjacent to the northeast boundary of Doddinghurst (see attached plan) and fronts Blackmore Road (opposite Dill Tree Farm and Dill Tree Health Centre). It comprises the main house, with outbuildings to the rear, and two small paddocks. It extends to some 1,85 ha and there are substantial tree and hedge lines to all boundaries. The settlement of Doddinghurst lies to the east, Dill Tree Farm and Dill Tree Health Centre lie to the north. A farm complex lies to the west, across a small field, with a copse bounding to the southwest. The site is visually contained by existing development and landscaping. The attached plan shows how the site could be developed to provide in the region of 32 residential units, at a density of 17.2 dwellings per hectare. Access would be taken via Blac The site does not occupy an isolated position in the Green Belt. Indeed, it fronts one of the main thoroughfares - Blackmore Road - in this part of the Borough, with there being bus stops, served by frequent services, some 50m to the east. This is a sustainable, accessible, site. Stage 3 - Sustainability Appraisal Appendix 3 of the Draft Local Plan Interim Sustainability Appraisal - January 2018 scores potential sites against a criteria based methodology in relation to 17 categories which are:- 1. AQMA. 2. SSSI. 3. Nature Reserve. 4. Ancient Woodland. 5. Local Wildlife Site. 6. Woodland. 7. GP Surgery. 8. Primary School. 9. Secondary School. 10. Conservation Area. 11. Scheduled Ancient Monument. 12. Registered Park or Garden of Historic Interest. 13. Listed Building. 14. Flood Zones 2 and 3. 15. Special Landscape Area. 16. Green Belt. 17. Agricultural Land. The sites are then put into 5 categories:- Dark Green - site performs particularly well. Light Green - site performs well. No shading - no issue in terms of the relevant criterion. Amber - site performs poorly. Red - site performs particularly poorly. As to be expected, every site (of the 300+ that were considered) performed poorly, or particularly poorly, in respect of one or more categories. The subject site is rated as having no impact upon a particular issue, or as performing well in 9 of the 17 categories (i.e. over 50%). It performs poorly in relation to 7 categories (SSSI, Ancient Woodland, Local Wildlife Site, Primary School, Listed Building, Green Belt and Agricultural Land) and only 'particularly poorly' in respect of 1 category (access to a Secondary School). The site performs as well as many other sites, including a number which have been identified in the Preferred Site Allocations document for Development. The Appraisal, as set out in the Draft Sustainability Appraisal, indicates that the site should move forward for detailed Stage 4 assessment. Stage 4 - Detailed Assessment The main criteria used in this stage of the assessment are described at paragraph 3.22 of the SSMSO:WD document. In this respect:- Flood Risk. The site lies within Flood Zone 1 and is not at risk of flooding. Green Belt. The site currently lies within the Green Belt and, therefore, it's development will lead to a loss of openness. However, the site is visually contained by existing development and landscape features and, therefore, the impact on the Green Belt outside of the site, itself, will be limited and can be mitigated through boundary landscaping. The Green Belt Study Working Draft (GBSWD) document includes the subject site within Parcel 41A. It assesses the contribution that each Parcel makes to the first four purposes of Green Belt which are:- 1. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; 2. To prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; 3. To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; and 4. To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns. In order to assess the contribution that each Parcel makes to Purpose 1, the GBSWD considers the 'containment' of the Parcel in terms of how well the land, or the features within it, contain existing settled areas and prevented urban sprawl. The Parcels are then put into three categories - 'Well-Contained', 'PartlyContained' and 'Not Contained' - with Parcel 41A falling within the middle, 'Partly-Contained', category. In terms of Purpose 2, the Parcels are put into four categories - 'Critical Countryside Gap', 'Import Countryside Gap', 'Minor Countryside Gap' and 'Non Critical Countryside Gap'. Parcel 41A falls in the highest category - 'Critical Country Gap'. Two categories were used in respect of Purpose 3 - these being 'Mixed Functions within Countryside' and 'Functional Countryside'. All Green Belt land to the north of A12, in the Borough, is defined as falling into the latter category. Finally, and in respect of Purpose 4, three categories were used - 'Limited Relationship with Historic Town', 'Moderate Relationship with Historic Town' and 'Strong Relationship with Historic Town'. Parcel 41A has a 'Limited Relationship with Historic Town'. Overall, Parcel 41A is deemed to make a moderate / high contribution to the first four Purposes of the Green Belt. This ranking is primarily due to the fact that the Parcel includes all that land between Doddinghurst and Kelvedon Hatch and thus helps to separate the two settlements (Purpose No. 2). The Green Belt Study Working Draft is, due to its very nature, a high level analysis dealing with large parcels of land and cannot take full account of the fact that, within each parcel, the contribution made by individual sites will vary. The main Purpose which the subject site serves is to restrict the extension of Doddinghurst to the east (Purpose 1). Whilst Parcel 41A (of which it forms a part) does maintain the gap between Doddinghurst and Kelvedon Hatch (Purpose 2), the loss of the subject site to the Green Belt, would not significantly harm that function. This is because the site forms a natural extension to Doddinghurst and is well-contained. Boundaries of the Green Belt in this location are ill-defined on the ground and there is large farmstead to the west. The site is well-contained, its development would create a logical, and defensible, boundary and its loss would not cause any significant diminution of the gap between the two settlements. Landscape: The site is not subject to any landscape designation and, being visually self-contained, it would not have a significant impact upon the character of the open countryside or surrounding area. Highways: The site lies in an accessible location on a major transport artery and bus route through this part of the Borough. Visibility, in both directions, from the access is good. There are pavement links (going east) into Doddinghurst and the speed limit, on this part of the road, is 30mph. Historic Assets: Dill Tree Farm, which lies opposite the site, is a listed building. The site could, however, be developed in a manner which causes no material harm to its setting. The are no registered parks or conservation areas in the vicinity. Ecology Designations: Church Wood, which lies adjacent to the southwest corner of the site, is designated as a County Wildlife Site. The nearest SSSI lies to the north of Kelvedon Hatch (The Coppice). Utilities: There are no known utility constraints in the Doddinghurst area. Education: The subject site has good access to Doddinghurst Church of England Junior School, with Secondary Schools being located in the main urban areas of Brentwood and Shenfield. Health Facilities: The site lies opposite the modern Dill Tree Health Centre. A detailed Site Assessment demonstrates that the site is suitable, available and deliverable for housing and should be allocated in the forthcoming Submission Draft Local Plan. See attached

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Please find attached representations made on behalf of S & J Padfield and Partners for Land at Codham Hall North. The representations consist of the following:
- Representation
- Consultation Form
- Green Belt Assessment
- Appendix A and Appendix B of the Green Belt Assessment

Please find attached representations made on behalf of S & J Padfield and Partners for Land at Codham Hall North. The representations consist of the following:
- Representation
- Consultation Form
- Green Belt Assessment
- Appendix A and Appendix B of the Green Belt Assessment

See attached.

See attached.

I am much disturbed by the proposal to build so many new homes on may vulnerable sites.
Quite apart from the usual caveats of traffic, air pollution, open space and wildlife. There are so many other things to be considered.
For example more houses mean more traffic, which means more wear and tear on our roads, which are already in a perilous state. Then there is the question of utilities, and schooling.
Finally where will all the doctors be to care for so many extra patients? It sometimes takes weeks to see a GP as it is. I am quite sur that local A&E departments will not be wanting extra attendances!
I urge the Council to re-think this all very carefully. There must be a better, more beneficial way to deal with this.