Paragraphs 41-42:
I oppose the 36% upward adjustment to the housing target made on the grounds of "affordability". The lack of affordable housing is due to prices being inflated by an unholy alliance of banks, estate agents, and government subsidy (cf. "Help to Buy" schemes). Even in London and the "Home Counties", there are many empty dwellings. Councils and government should concentrate on bringing more of these empty dwellings into use (the ability to impose a higher rate of Council Tax on such dwellings is one welcome development), instead of destroying the green belt. Within Essex, Brentwood will always command a premium, owing to its excellent transport links (both road and rail, as acknowledged in paragraph 26), no matter how much the supply of housing and employment land is increased. As a 25-year-old, I wish to make it clear that I object in the strongest terms to attempts at justifying destruction of the green belt in the name of "young people".

Sites 010, 022, 023A, 023B, 027, 032, 034, 075B, 076, 077, 079A, 083, 085B, 087, 106, 128, 158, 194, 200, 235, 263, 276, 294:

I oppose any encroachment on the green belt. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the "permanence" and "openness" of the green belt are vital facets of its integrity. Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the NPPF also make clear that Objectively Assessed Housing Need is not the only pertinent factor in determining housing targets, and the significant amount of green belt land in the borough would be sufficient justification to set housing targets at a lower level than that suggested by the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (Brentwood's green belt is, according to the council's own strategic growth options development plan, "the sixth highest in England by percentage of total area"). Moreover, it should be observed that developers are failing to implement planning permissions already obtained (cf. section on Historic Building Rates, as described by the Council in its responses to Sajid Javid). Until such permissions have been utilised, it is unacceptable to reward developers with more permissions.

In short, I call upon the Council to declare the green belt as an absolute constraint (cf. draft local plan in 2013), notwithstanding the alleged risk of being found "structurally unsound". It is my view that the Council is exaggerating such a risk: past comments by Eric Pickles, former MP for Brentwood & Ongar, who was the minister responsible for implementing major legislative changes in the so-called "localism agenda", have made clear that the green belt is a sound reason for reducing the housing targets.

Paragraph 63:

The Brentwood Town Centre Design Plan (2017) has some promising ideas. However, it could be more ambitious in the density proposed. Given the high demand for housing and the excellent transport connections in the town centre, there should be a presumption in favour of taller buildings (preserving the green belt is far more important than preserving the so-called "skyline"), provided that they do not impinge upon the "right to light" of existing dwellings and gardens.

Sites 002, 003, 039, 040, 041, 081, 102, 117A, 117B, 186:

In general, I support the development of these sites, provided that they are developed in a manner that does not necessitate significant felling of trees now or in the future. Woodland is of immense value aesthetically, recreationally, and environmentally. Brentwood benefits from having woodland within very easy reach, and it is vital that this remains the case, including in the urban parts not designated as "green belt".
As stated in my comment on paragraph 63, I believe that the density proposed for these sites could be higher. Higher densities on these brownfield sites would then obviate any alleged need to develop other sites.

Site 102:

I support an approach that prioritises the residential facet, maximising the number of dwellings, subject to respecting the "right to light" of adjacent properties. I believe that more than 300 residential dwellings could and should be built here. The need for more medium-sized commercial units (cf. Brentwood Town Centre Design Plan (2017)) can be realised through the repurposing/refurbishment of existing commercial buildings, including the Baytree Centre, which has never been at full occupation.

Sites 044 and 178:

Although not green belt, these sites offer open space within the urban area, and are thus of immense value in their present state. Furthermore, existing infrastructure is not amenable to development — public transport in the vicinity is almost non-existent, and the roads would struggle to accommodate the extra traffic.

Employment Sites 079C, 101A, 187, 200:

I oppose any encroachment on the green belt. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the "permanence" and "openness" of the green belt are vital facets of its integrity.
The Council could consider larger allocations in the town centre, especially in underutilised retail areas such as the Baytree Centre.
I call upon the Council to declare the green belt as an absolute constraint (cf. draft local plan in 2013), notwithstanding the alleged risk of being found "structurally unsound". It is my view that the Council is exaggerating such a risk: past comments by Eric Pickles, former MP for Brentwood & Ongar, who was the minister responsible for implementing major legislative changes in the so-called "localism agenda", have made clear that the green belt is a sound reason for reducing targets.

Paragraphs 41-42:
I oppose the 36% upward adjustment to the housing target made on the grounds of "affordability". The lack of affordable housing is due to prices being inflated by an unholy alliance of banks, estate agents, and government subsidy (cf. "Help to Buy" schemes). Even in London and the "Home Counties", there are many empty dwellings. Councils and government should concentrate on bringing more of these empty dwellings into use (the ability to impose a higher rate of Council Tax on such dwellings is one welcome development), instead of destroying the green belt. Within Essex, Brentwood will always command a premium, owing to its excellent transport links (both road and rail, as acknowledged in paragraph 26), no matter how much the supply of housing and employment land is increased. As a 25-year-old, I wish to make it clear that I object in the strongest terms to attempts at justifying destruction of the green belt in the name of "young people".

Sites 010, 022, 023A, 023B, 027, 032, 034, 075B, 076, 077, 079A, 083, 085B, 087, 106, 128, 158, 194, 200, 235, 263, 276, 294:

I oppose any encroachment on the green belt. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the "permanence" and "openness" of the green belt are vital facets of its integrity. Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the NPPF also make clear that Objectively Assessed Housing Need is not the only pertinent factor in determining housing targets, and the significant amount of green belt land in the borough would be sufficient justification to set housing targets at a lower level than that suggested by the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (Brentwood's green belt is, according to the council's own strategic growth options development plan, "the sixth highest in England by percentage of total area"). Moreover, it should be observed that developers are failing to implement planning permissions already obtained (cf. section on Historic Building Rates, as described by the Council in its responses to Sajid Javid). Until such permissions have been utilised, it is unacceptable to reward developers with more permissions.

In short, I call upon the Council to declare the green belt as an absolute constraint (cf. draft local plan in 2013), notwithstanding the alleged risk of being found "structurally unsound". It is my view that the Council is exaggerating such a risk: past comments by Eric Pickles, former MP for Brentwood & Ongar, who was the minister responsible for implementing major legislative changes in the so-called "localism agenda", have made clear that the green belt is a sound reason for reducing the housing targets.

Paragraph 63:

The Brentwood Town Centre Design Plan (2017) has some promising ideas. However, it could be more ambitious in the density proposed. Given the high demand for housing and the excellent transport connections in the town centre, there should be a presumption in favour of taller buildings (preserving the green belt is far more important than preserving the so-called "skyline"), provided that they do not impinge upon the "right to light" of existing dwellings and gardens.

Sites 002, 003, 039, 040, 041, 081, 102, 117A, 117B, 186:

In general, I support the development of these sites, provided that they are developed in a manner that does not necessitate significant felling of trees now or in the future. Woodland is of immense value aesthetically, recreationally, and environmentally. Brentwood benefits from having woodland within very easy reach, and it is vital that this remains the case, including in the urban parts not designated as "green belt".
As stated in my comment on paragraph 63, I believe that the density proposed for these sites could be higher. Higher densities on these brownfield sites would then obviate any alleged need to develop other sites.

Site 102:

I support an approach that prioritises the residential facet, maximising the number of dwellings, subject to respecting the "right to light" of adjacent properties. I believe that more than 300 residential dwellings could and should be built here. The need for more medium-sized commercial units (cf. Brentwood Town Centre Design Plan (2017)) can be realised through the repurposing/refurbishment of existing commercial buildings, including the Baytree Centre, which has never been at full occupation.

Sites 044 and 178:

Although not green belt, these sites offer open space within the urban area, and are thus of immense value in their present state. Furthermore, existing infrastructure is not amenable to development — public transport in the vicinity is almost non-existent, and the roads would struggle to accommodate the extra traffic.

Employment Sites 079C, 101A, 187, 200:

I oppose any encroachment on the green belt. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the "permanence" and "openness" of the green belt are vital facets of its integrity.
The Council could consider larger allocations in the town centre, especially in underutilised retail areas such as the Baytree Centre.
I call upon the Council to declare the green belt as an absolute constraint (cf. draft local plan in 2013), notwithstanding the alleged risk of being found "structurally unsound". It is my view that the Council is exaggerating such a risk: past comments by Eric Pickles, former MP for Brentwood & Ongar, who was the minister responsible for implementing major legislative changes in the so-called "localism agenda", have made clear that the green belt is a sound reason for reducing targets.

1: Any development in the West Horndon area must not be on the flood plain area's ie East Horndon Hall designated employment area.
2: New industrial estate near M25 junction has only road links no public transport to site. This junction is notorious for being jammed leaving the site stranded ,god forbid emergency services being unable to get to the site.
3: To Large a percentage of the plan is south of the A127 not nearly enough near new cross rail infrastructure.
4:Dunton garden suburb can only work if it does not rely only on the A127 as this road is at full capacity now. Public transport link essential other than road.

1. This proposed development, which if sanctioned will build right up to the joint border with Basildon Borough, fails to maintain the required gap between the two Boroughs and therefore fails to stop the coalescence between Basildon and Brentwood. I believe this is a stated requirement in the NPPF national Planning Policy Framework.

I object to these proposals, As I live in Ingrave and the A128 would become a major route for construction traffic. This road was not built to take that sort of traffic, you only need to look at it first thing in the morning to see that. It is quite normal for traffic to queue almost from the Halfway House roundabout to the Running waters roundabout. During the spring and summer months, this has a detrimental effect on the air quality. I would like to see the results of (if any) environmental impact study that has been undertaken by BBC to show the impact on health of the increase of traffic. Especially as the majority of the increase would be from large diesel lorries. I moved to Brentwood to get away from poor air quality in London and now you are dead set about going down the same path.

The act states that the Green belt was set up:

* To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas
* To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another
* To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment
* To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns
* To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land.

Once an area of land has been defined as green belt, the stated opportunities and benefits include:
* Providing opportunities for access to the open countryside for the urban population
* Providing opportunities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation near urban areas
* The retention of attractive landscapes and the enhancement of landscapes, near to where people live
* Improvement of damaged and derelict land around towns
* The securing of nature conservation interests
* The retention of land in agricultural, forestry and related uses.

As someone who has a great knowledge of the building industry, I know that developers would rather build on virgin land that carry the cost of decontaminating brownfield sites. So please make this development a last result and not a first choice, for the sake of generations to come.

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.

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

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 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 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 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 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 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 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

Brentwood is struggling to cope with no doctors appointments! no places in schools! car parks overflowing! and less and less jobs! shop closures! PLEASE STOP BUILDING AND FURTHER RUINING OUR TOWN! and local villages!!!

I object to these proposals because I object to the demolition of our green belt land. The demolition of our wildlife and the disruption to our wildlife trust areas. Our schools can not cope with the amount of children already needing spaces, especially secondary schools. The extra traffic will increase making already busy roads which are struggling to cope impossible. Waiting times at the local hospital are already longer than they should be and the accident and emergency department can barely cope as it is and was highlighted again over the winter period where patients were left in ambulances for extended periods of time as there was no room to even take them into the hospital, let alone a bed if needed. The knock on effect of this was a ridiculous wait for an ambulance in an emergency. How will the hospital cope with thousands more patients needing urgent or necessary care? My son has multiple needs and I have to chase up and fight for basic interventions such as physio and occupational therapy let alone wheelchair services or medical needs.

I object to these proposals because I object to the demolition of our green belt land. The demolition of our wildlife and the disruption to our wildlife trust areas. Our schools can not cope with the amount of children already needing spaces, especially secondary schools. The extra traffic will increase making already busy roads which are struggling to cope impossible. Waiting times at the local hospital are already longer than they should be and the accident and emergency department can barely cope as it is and was highlighted again over the winter period where patients were left in ambulances for extended periods of time as there was no room to even take them into the hospital, let alone a bed if needed. The knock on effect of this was a ridiculous wait for an ambulance in an emergency. How will the hospital cope with thousands more patients needing urgent or necessary care? My son has multiple needs and I have to chase up and fight for basic interventions such as physio and occupational therapy let alone wheelchair services or medical needs.

I object to these proposals because I object to the demolition of our green belt land. The demolition of our wildlife and the disruption to our wildlife trust areas. Our schools can not cope with the amount of children already needing spaces, especially secondary schools. The extra traffic will increase making already busy roads which are struggling to cope impossible. Waiting times at the local hospital are already longer than they should be and the accident and emergency department can barely cope as it is and was highlighted again over the winter period where patients were left in ambulances for extended periods of time as there was no room to even take them into the hospital, let alone a bed if needed. The knock on effect of this was a ridiculous wait for an ambulance in an emergency. How will the hospital cope with thousands more patients needing urgent or necessary care? My son has multiple needs and I have to chase up and fight for basic interventions such as physio and occupational therapy let alone wheelchair services or medical needs.

I object to these proposals because I object to the demolition of our green belt land. The demolition of our wildlife and the disruption to our wildlife trust areas. Our schools can not cope with the amount of children already needing spaces, especially secondary schools. The extra traffic will increase making already busy roads which are struggling to cope impossible. Waiting times at the local hospital are already longer than they should be and the accident and emergency department can barely cope as it is and was highlighted again over the winter period where patients were left in ambulances for extended periods of time as there was no room to even take them into the hospital, let alone a bed if needed. The knock on effect of this was a ridiculous wait for an ambulance in an emergency. How will the hospital cope with thousands more patients needing urgent or necessary care? My son has multiple needs and I have to chase up and fight for basic interventions such as physio and occupational therapy let alone wheelchair services or medical needs.

I object to these proposals because I object to the demolition of our green belt land. The demolition of our wildlife and the disruption to our wildlife trust areas. Our schools can not cope with the amount of children already needing spaces, especially secondary schools. The extra traffic will increase making already busy roads which are struggling to cope impossible. Waiting times at the local hospital are already longer than they should be and the accident and emergency department can barely cope as it is and was highlighted again over the winter period where patients were left in ambulances for extended periods of time as there was no room to even take them into the hospital, let alone a bed if needed. The knock on effect of this was a ridiculous wait for an ambulance in an emergency. How will the hospital cope with thousands more patients needing urgent or necessary care? My son has multiple needs and I have to chase up and fight for basic interventions such as physio and occupational therapy let alone wheelchair services or medical needs.

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

My main comment relates to the proposed employment site the Brentwood Enterprise Park. If my interpretation of the local development plan and the plan outlining the Lower Thames Crossing proposed route are both correct the formation of the Enterprise Park would be impossible given the proposed route of the new Lower Thames Crossing takes the site. I note that Brentwood failed to respond to the recent Lower Thames Crossing consultation. I am already concerned about the lack of employment opportunities in the plan and this would affect this even further.

Secondly I express my concern on the amount of development that takes place alongside the A1023. This is already a congested route more so when there is an incident on the A12. I cannot see how all of this development can take place with the A1023 as the main access and egress. I would urge you to reconsider this level of development taking place alongside this route. The developments which would be reliant on this road:

Eagle & Child 20 units
Crescent Drive - 55 units
Land east of Chelmsford Road, Shenfield - 215 units
Officer's Meadow, land off Alexander Lane, Shenfield - 510 units
Land North of A1023 Chelmsford Road, Shenfield - 100 units

I wanted to say that broadly I support your draft local plan though I do object to any development on the Green Belt. Unfortunately I couldn't find a "comment" page on your site.

I have read through the proposals for the Local Development Plan and viewed the Draft Preferred Site Allocations document.

I realise that more housing is needed and the Dunton Hills Garden village seems to be a good site. Well located for transport links and of a good size.

I am however concerned about the amount of current greenfield sites in the plan when there appears to be more than enough brownfield sites. Most concerning are the sites that are highly visible greenfield - such as the sites just off the A12 junctions (especially 158 but also 276, 263 & 106).

I have read through the proposals for the Local Development Plan and viewed the Draft Preferred Site Allocations document.

I realise that more housing is needed and the Dunton Hills Garden village seems to be a good site. Well located for transport links and of a good size.

I am however concerned about the amount of current greenfield sites in the plan when there appears to be more than enough brownfield sites. Most concerning are the sites that are highly visible greenfield - such as the sites just off the A12 junctions (especially 158 but also 276, 263 & 106).

We understand that folk need homes. We are fortunate that we have a home.
However, we are especially concerned that the roads in Brentwood already cannot cope with increased traffic and parts of the town become grid locked.
We also wonder how the services, e.g. water & sewage pipes, already old and dilapidated, will cope with new housing.
Have the schools sufficient places for more little ones?
Will the G.P. Practices and hospitals be able to take the responsibility for new residents?
We would like to be kept informed of the Plans, please keep us posted.

I object to these proposals because it will destroy our Green Belt which needs to be protected. The area is congested and polluted enough already and I'm strongly opposed to building more houses on green belt