Our client, Martin Grant Homes, supports Brentwood Council's approach in planning to meet the full OAN within the Borough. However, there are the following concerns: Over-reliance on Dunton Hills Garden Village to provide 40% of the allocated housing growth; The lack of flexibility in the strategy to accommodate un-met need from neighbouring authorities; Limiting the housing requirement to just 380 dwellings per year prevents sustainable sites that are available now coming forward within the plan period and does not acknowledge the changes to calculating housing need using a standardised methodology. The current approach is limiting to sustainable development opportunities and may not deliver the full extent of the housing provision in the plan period. It is considered that by identifying more sites for modest development in sustainable locations such as our client's site would be an appropriate solution to meeting the identified housing needs across the Borough and would not lead to the loss of large areas of the Green Belt in concentrated locations. The inclusion of sites such as land at Heron Court in Herongate will provide Brentwood Borough with a range of sites that enable a flexible approach to housing delivery and ensure that land comes forward within the plan period. Brentwood's current strategy to largely rely on the Dunton Hills Garden Suburb and windfall sites could result in issues with delivery which prevent the Borough meeting its identified housing need and result in the Borough continuing to be unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Please see attached representations for more detailed information.

I have lived, studied and worked in Brentwood since 1963, and have seen significant changes to the town , some to be celebrated and others to be objected to.
The latest version of the Draft LDP clearly details the pressure on Brentwood to play its part in addressing the national shortage of housing and set out to demonstrate 'how' our town can play iots part.

The Draft LDP document under the heading "Preferred Site Allocation" details the potential of sites across the town for housing development.
I do not understand why the Hutton area appears to be unable to offer up any suitable sites for substantial development .?

I am generally supportive of the proposed sites , especially the increased number of dwellings on the William Hunter Way site, and would encourage a further increase in dwellings on this site.

PROBLEMS OF TRAFFIC GENERATION
However I do have a number of concerns arising from the scale of the overall developments ,
For example : Westbury Road Car Park is listed as having the potential for 45 dwellings , possibly houses . If each house owns 1 car, potentially it will bring an additional 90 movements onto an already over worked road network,.
Some of the larger developments ( excluding Dunton Hills Garden Village 2,500 to 4000)
e.g. Officers Meadow for up 510 dwellings would possibly bring up to 1000 traffic movements per day

Objections to the Draft LDP concerns the lack of detail concerning the massive increase in traffic that will be generated when all these new dwellings are built.
In reading much of the full Draft LDP I found many gaps in the information or missing statistics that may have answers my Objections , but despite the "expert" language used , it is light on content concerning proposals as to how BBC will address the Traffic Issues.
Surely until the problems of additional traffic generation are resolved, development of these sites should be held in abeyance .

I have lived, studied and worked in Brentwood since 1963, and have seen significant changes to the town , some to be celebrated and others to be objected to.
The latest version of the Draft LDP clearly details the pressure on Brentwood to play its part in addressing the national shortage of housing and set out to demonstrate 'how' our town can play iots part.

The Draft LDP document under the heading "Preferred Site Allocation" details the potential of sites across the town for housing development.
I do not understand why the Hutton area appears to be unable to offer up any suitable sites for substantial development .?

I am generally supportive of the proposed sites , especially the increased number of dwellings on the William Hunter Way site, and would encourage a further increase in dwellings on this site.

PROBLEMS OF TRAFFIC GENERATION
However I do have a number of concerns arising from the scale of the overall developments ,
For example : Westbury Road Car Park is listed as having the potential for 45 dwellings , possibly houses . If each house owns 1 car, potentially it will bring an additional 90 movements onto an already over worked road network,.
Some of the larger developments ( excluding Dunton Hills Garden Village 2,500 to 4000)
e.g. Officers Meadow for up 510 dwellings would possibly bring up to 1000 traffic movements per day

Objections to the Draft LDP concerns the lack of detail concerning the massive increase in traffic that will be generated when all these new dwellings are built.
In reading much of the full Draft LDP I found many gaps in the information or missing statistics that may have answers my Objections , but despite the "expert" language used , it is light on content concerning proposals as to how BBC will address the Traffic Issues.
Surely until the problems of additional traffic generation are resolved, development of these sites should be held in abeyance .

I have lived, studied and worked in Brentwood since 1963, and have seen significant changes to the town , some to be celebrated and others to be objected to.
The latest version of the Draft LDP clearly details the pressure on Brentwood to play its part in addressing the national shortage of housing and set out to demonstrate 'how' our town can play iots part.

The Draft LDP document under the heading "Preferred Site Allocation" details the potential of sites across the town for housing development.
I do not understand why the Hutton area appears to be unable to offer up any suitable sites for substantial development .?

I am generally supportive of the proposed sites , especially the increased number of dwellings on the William Hunter Way site, and would encourage a further increase in dwellings on this site.

PROBLEMS OF TRAFFIC GENERATION
However I do have a number of concerns arising from the scale of the overall developments ,
For example : Westbury Road Car Park is listed as having the potential for 45 dwellings , possibly houses . If each house owns 1 car, potentially it will bring an additional 90 movements onto an already over worked road network,.
Some of the larger developments ( excluding Dunton Hills Garden Village 2,500 to 4000)
e.g. Officers Meadow for up 510 dwellings would possibly bring up to 1000 traffic movements per day

Objections to the Draft LDP concerns the lack of detail concerning the massive increase in traffic that will be generated when all these new dwellings are built.
In reading much of the full Draft LDP I found many gaps in the information or missing statistics that may have answers my Objections , but despite the "expert" language used , it is light on content concerning proposals as to how BBC will address the Traffic Issues.
Surely until the problems of additional traffic generation are resolved, development of these sites should be held in abeyance .

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

I am extremely concerned at the amount and proposed amount residential home development that is going on and is likely to take place in Ingatestone. We already have the influx of addditional properties at Trueloves, Mountnessing roundabout, The Crown and land to the rear plus Bell Mead apartments which is already causing parking, road congestion problems plus availability of GP services. Residents have to predict at least a week in advance if the are going to be ill. I understand that our local primary schools in Mountnessing and Ingatestone have a one year waiting list as they are over subscribed. How can you possibly approve further devlopments of approximately 200 properties which could result in nearly 1000 more residents. The impact of all this will be disastrous to the village and the life of current residents who chose to live in a village and not a suburb of Brentwood. Apart from this, your council cannot provide the optimum level of services to current residents so how can your service departments provide for even more. Please ensure that these comments are forwarded to those responsible for devising/finalising the current Borough Plan and acknowledge that this has been done. With many thanks.

I am extremely concerned at the amount and proposed amount residential home development that is going on and is likely to take place in Ingatestone. We already have the influx of addditional properties at Trueloves, Mountnessing roundabout, The Crown and land to the rear plus Bell Mead apartments which is already causing parking, road congestion problems plus availability of GP services. Residents have to predict at least a week in advance if the are going to be ill. I understand that our local primary schools in Mountnessing and Ingatestone have a one year waiting list as they are over subscribed. How can you possibly approve further devlopments of approximately 200 properties which could result in nearly 1000 more residents. The impact of all this will be disastrous to the village and the life of current residents who chose to live in a village and not a suburb of Brentwood. Apart from this, your council cannot provide the optimum level of services to current residents so how can your service departments provide for even more. Please ensure that these comments are forwarded to those responsible for devising/finalising the current Borough Plan and acknowledge that this has been done. With many thanks.

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.

With the amount of traffic on Brentwood roads and the lack of car parking already afflicting the town, it seems inconceivable that this proposal is on the table. All this will do is create more congestion, more pollution and more frustration at not enough parking spaces in Brentwood. It would be refreshing if Brentwood Council would actually act on behalf of the people that already live in the town, rather than their usual stance of treating the town as a business.

My opinion is that far too much development is being pushed into West Horndon and the immediate surrounding area. Why is the north of the borough being virtually ignored when the A12 is already lined up for improvement?
In West Horndon just the development in the Industrial estate will virtually double the number of dwellings in the village and therefore will significantly increase pressure on traffic, the railway station c2c journeys and the doctors.
DGV it seems will go ahead and the extra traffic will go on the A127 We can see the A127 from our house and the DGV will bring it to a standstill as it cannot cope now.
I think that that plan for 10 traveller sites at the industrial estate and 30 at DGV is disgusting. It has been quietly sneaked into the LDP hoping it would get missed in all the documentation. Seeing the mess left at Tesco Laindon recently appalled me. What good reason can Brentwood have for planning two developments then making the houses in them unsaleable due to traveller sites? Just saying it is the most reasonable place for them is insulting to this village and the surrounding area. Have the potential developers been advised of this proposal?
It seems for some reason best known to Brentwood BC that dumping everything on West Horndon is their fix.
I do not object in principle to development and understand it is necessary, but 590 homes on the industrial estate is enough, DGV is I think a done deal, but the travelers sites as well is a step too far.

My opinion is that far too much development is being pushed into West Horndon and the immediate surrounding area. Why is the north of the borough being virtually ignored when the A12 is already lined up for improvement?
In West Horndon just the development in the Industrial estate will virtually double the number of dwellings in the village and therefore will significantly increase pressure on traffic, the railway station c2c journeys and the doctors.
DGV it seems will go ahead and the extra traffic will go on the A127 We can see the A127 from our house and the DGV will bring it to a standstill as it cannot cope now.
I think that that plan for 10 traveller sites at the industrial estate and 30 at DGV is disgusting. It has been quietly sneaked into the LDP hoping it would get missed in all the documentation. Seeing the mess left at Tesco Laindon recently appalled me. What good reason can Brentwood have for planning two developments then making the houses in them unsaleable due to traveller sites? Just saying it is the most reasonable place for them is insulting to this village and the surrounding area. Have the potential developers been advised of this proposal?
It seems for some reason best known to Brentwood BC that dumping everything on West Horndon is their fix.
I do not object in principle to development and understand it is necessary, but 590 homes on the industrial estate is enough, DGV is I think a done deal, but the travelers sites as well is a step too far.

I note that the committee has worked hard to identify potential development sites for housing inter alia.
My concerns lie within your "site constraint" paragraphs. While you identify very serious constraints such as parking, wildlife and woodland sites, conservation areas, and surface water flood risk, the implication is that you will, nevertheless, need to use these sites in order to meet your targets.
There is barely sufficient convenient parking space at present to attract people into the town centre rather than driving to out of town shopping sites, so, attractive as the current parking sites are for potential housing development, you need to retain town centre parking areas.
As for building on the station parking area, with its recognised danger of causing railway line flooding, unless the solution is extensive subterranean parking with subway access to the station, and a built-in drainage reservoir, I fail to see how Brentwood's potential and existing rail travellers are going to find Brentwood an attractive proposition.
I will also mention that your primary school predictions are already out of date as it has been acknowledged that Holly trees primary school cannot grow and that Warley primary school will need to grow to 420 pupils to account for the shortfall. I also understood that there was a need to build another primary school within the town in order to accommodate the growing and potential pupil numbers but I can find no site allocation for such a school with its requisite recreation grounds and fields.
Finally, I acknowledge the commitment to providing powering stations for the electric cars of the future. I do hope the facilities will predate the necessary influx of theses eco cars!

I note that the committee has worked hard to identify potential development sites for housing inter alia.
My concerns lie within your "site constraint" paragraphs. While you identify very serious constraints such as parking, wildlife and woodland sites, conservation areas, and surface water flood risk, the implication is that you will, nevertheless, need to use these sites in order to meet your targets.
There is barely sufficient convenient parking space at present to attract people into the town centre rather than driving to out of town shopping sites, so, attractive as the current parking sites are for potential housing development, you need to retain town centre parking areas.
As for building on the station parking area, with its recognised danger of causing railway line flooding, unless the solution is extensive subterranean parking with subway access to the station, and a built-in drainage reservoir, I fail to see how Brentwood's potential and existing rail travellers are going to find Brentwood an attractive proposition.
I will also mention that your primary school predictions are already out of date as it has been acknowledged that Holly trees primary school cannot grow and that Warley primary school will need to grow to 420 pupils to account for the shortfall. I also understood that there was a need to build another primary school within the town in order to accommodate the growing and potential pupil numbers but I can find no site allocation for such a school with its requisite recreation grounds and fields.
Finally, I acknowledge the commitment to providing powering stations for the electric cars of the future. I do hope the facilities will predate the necessary influx of theses eco cars!

My first thoughts on reading the proposals are connected to the development of the town centre car parks. The loss of parking spaces in the town will severely affect the business community and the atmosphere and ethos of the town centre, particularly the high street. If people are unable to park they are more likely to take their business out of town. The bus services are not sufficiently frequent to enable residents in outlying areas to visit the town to shop. Unless further provision is made, the only parking spaces would seem to be at Sainsbury's, which would be totally inadequate. Also, if the Railway station car park is built on, it would severely affect commuters.

Access constraints to roads that are already suffering from over-use, are narrow and dangerous. E.g. regarding site 077 - a particular problem as the road through the village is already very busy and passes by the local school. There are parking issues relating to this with a difficult junction from Redrose Lane. Increase in speeding (already a problem).
Destruction of green belt environment and habitation of wildlife - a feature of village life and noticeably in decline. The piece of land - 077 - south of Redrose Lane supports diverse wildlife - skylarks, hedge-sparrows and owls - all these species are under threat. It also supports the many small mammals, insects and plants which provide their food-source.
Surface water drainage poor - localised flooding. Village lies in a valley where many local streams converge - also source of river Wid.
Lack of infrastructure.
Pressure on village amenities and local school, doctors, etc.
Increase in traffic and pollution, Pollution from rubbish is already a significant problem - also fly-tipping. The amount of rubbish already dumped along the lanes and in ditches is shameful.
Increase in use of cars to access railway stations, towns, schools, etc. Subsequent further damage to very poorly maintained lanes/roads.
Many cycling clubs/running clubs/walkers/horse-riders etc. use the surrounding lanes - this is already a dangerous problem - more cars - more chances of accidents. Few pavements and lighting.
Working on an average of (say) 3 per household - both sites would increase the village population by at least 300, lack of infrastructure to support such an increase. Additional households will subsequently attract more traffic/parking problems.
Destruction of village life - village will increasingly become a 'commuter' settlement.
Broadband coverage is extremely poor.
If the idea is to attract young property buyers, there is nothing to attract them in Blackmore - this would lead to more car-usage to access towns.

General Comment

People tend to come and live in this area for 'village' life and the surrounding countryside. Although it is accepted there is a housing problem, this has to be carefully considered to prevent destruction of the 'village' life people are attracted to. Any large development would seriously detract from the benefits of living here and subsequently drive away those who already live here happily, and have done so for some time, therefore shifting the balance in age-groups, demographics which at present co-exist quite happily.

I would wish to record the objections of my wife, my son and myself to the above-proposed site being included within the Local Plan. The reasons for my objection are noted below:

The proposed development will ruin the rural environment in which I have lived for over 20 years. The development will create a huge housing estate almost equal in size to the Homesteads estate with more than double the density. It will destroy the character of the whole area. Even though the site is constrained and adjacent to the A12 the green open space is highly valued by local residents in terms of the environment and significantly contributes to the quite rural setting. You state in the plan that sites are also selected to prevent sprawl, however because of the restriction of he A12, traffic from the development can only disperse via Honey Pot and adjoining roads. A housing development of 200 homes will totally destroy the character of the whole area; create increased traffic related issues including noise nuisance and concerns related to safety and rat running.

The new St Charles development has created additional traffic nuisance through Honey Pot Lane and in particular Hill Road and the Homesteads estate. This is as a result of motorists having difficulties exiting at the junction of Honey Pot Lane and London Road; motorists now use Hill Road as a rat run. Indeed Councilor Will Russell admitted to me himself at a previou road show event at South Weald Parish Hall that he uses the estate as a through route taking his children to St Peters school. This will be made worse by increased traffic from the proposed development site and the inevitable widening of Honey Pot Lane next to the site.

Highway improvements although funded by the developer will not improve this situation regardless of how achieved, roundabout or traffic lights introduced at the junction of London Road and Honeypot Lane. London Road is an extremely busy Principle Road and will always be given traffic priority, increased traffic using Honey Pot Lane will not readily exit onto London Road and as a result will divert down Hill Road. Hill Road is a privately owned road, non adopted and should not be used as a through route to the M25 and London Road. Indeed the access into Hill Road should be closed if you permit this development to take place.

Access to the proposed site will have to be made via Honey Pot lane and as such, the narrow road adjacent to the site will I assume be widened this will make the use of the route from Weald Road to London more attractive as it will be easier to access and will further create increased traffic nuisance in Honey Pot Lane and again resulting in Hill Road and the Homesteads being used as a rat run and short cut to avoid the junction of Honey Pot Lane and London Road.

An additional concern related to the wider road network relates to motorists using a route from Ongar Road, Sandpit Lane, Weald Road to London Road this will inevitably result in increased traffic movement North - South if widening of Honey Pot Lane is carried out and the junction of Honey pot Lane and London road redesigned. Any increase in traffic using Honey Pot Lane will have a significant impact on Hill Road a private development of individually designed houses. Hill Road and the Homesteads Estate should not be a through route or rat run for traffic at any time.

Other proposed development sites within the draft plan will also have traffic implications in regards to Honey Pot Lane.

Unfortunately I was not able to attend the council meeting where our local Petition was discussed and I understand the council agreed to include the petition as part of the consultation process. However having viewed the video of the meeting I was amazed to hear one of the councilors mention that the inclusion of sites in the draft plan had not been considered previously by councilors. The inclusion of sites within the plan it would seem is officer led. Unfortunately officers had previously recommended a back garden development for approval on the Homesteads Estate that was rejected unanimously by all planning committee members and also rejected at a subsequent appeal. Hopefully officers will listen to the significant objections of local residents and remove the site from the plan.

A new huge housing development on the scale proposed in Honey Pot Lane will totally destroy the character and environment of the area, create increased local highway problems and add to problems associated with the North - South route created to access London Road and the M25. This development and density will be double the size of the existing estates of the Homesteads and surrounding properties and will totally transform the whole area for the worse for the existing community.

I strongly object to the proposed site being used for Housing Development and would hope that officers and councilors will take note of residents objections and also the petition presented to the council some time ago. I also do not believe you have considered the full potential of land adjacent to the A12 from Shenfield heading East to the A12. This land if at all is better suited particularly as it is also fronted by a principal road and the associated public transport link.

To whom it may concern.

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

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

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

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

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

In respect of the above plan I am writing my objections to it. It seems that only yesterday I took part in a 10 year plan consultation process that was supposed to be the way forward. What a waste of time and energy.

As I and neighbours have been ignored by the planning committee previously and our objections have proved to be correct, I have little faith in the consultation process. It appears to be a paper exercise and another 'that box is ticked'.

I object in general to the proposals that impact on the villages and parishes, as if built, they will become towns. My main objection is to the planned sites at 076 and 077 as well as 075B. The objections range from the infrastructure, to primary school, doctors surgery, extra traffic, congestion, parking, road safety, local facilities, air and noise pollution, vandalism and the loss of community spirit where residents look out for each other to the loss of green belt land. I exercise by using Red Rose Lane as part of a circuitous route as I and other residents run around the village, dog walk and walk. The impact of this number houses on this community will be detrimental to the current residents.

The only winners in this plan are the developers and residents will have to pickup the cost of sustaining the other houses after they have taken their profits and run.

I know this will not be read but hope it will add another 1 to the number of those who oppose the development plan.

Thank you

John Lester

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

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

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

My main concerns are:

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

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

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

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

With my thanks in anticipation of your attention to my comments

I oppose the building of new homes in the area, the town cant cope now with the amount of traffic that comes through let alone with the building of 1000's of new homes. The town can not take anymore. What it needs is investment in to the high street more shops not homes.

1. There are already 5 houses in the village that have been left unoccupied for 5 years and over, as well as buildings with planning consent for conversion to 3 homes on which no action is being taken. New building is not needed while the existing stock is underused.
2. The mains drainage of the proposed central village location is unable to take such a large development.
3. Medical services cannot service the implied increase of 300-400 population.
4. The primary school is already full.
5. If the developments access Red Rose Lane, the ability to walk safely there will be lost; if they access the village centre through the existing estates, the central area will become even more dangerous to pedestrians. Much of the village has only limited pavements, and the ability of residents to walk safely is a fundamental right.
6. Wifi response speed is already very poor, due to the distance from the main hub in Brentwood. A significant increase in users will make it even worse.
7. I particularly dislike the Council attitude that its problems can be dumped on Blackmore, as has happened with the illegal travellers' settlement.

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.

* Building on car parks will mean no parking and the death of the town centre.
* There are other sites to build on such as Dunton and Clapgate rather than countryside.
* Increased building in or surrounding the town will increase traffic and cause even worse traffic jams. The town will be grid locked. This is also not safe as emergency vehicles will be unable to travel. Air pollution will increase.
* Using green belt sets a precedent. Urban sprawl will become inevitable. The character of Brentwood will change from being an attractive rural district to just another urban town. There is a threat to wildlife.
* Incidentally, the council also needs to look at and utilise existing dwellings with no occupancy e.g. two in Hatch Road

I object to these proposals because of the planned use of green belt. Green belt should be preserved for our children and future generations to come.

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.

The principle of National Green Belt should be protected. Once ,even if small incursions are made,it is the thin end of the wedge. Future generations will be deprived of areas of natural environment.

Infrastructure. Inadequate roads,traffic levels too high,parking problems in Blackmore, major upgrades needed to essential utilities for foul water system, water supply,power,gas and communications. At present digital communication is still one of the poorest in Essex. Currently we have a well fed by an underground water course.Any development must not cause flooding problems to this property. If anyone reads this please contact me to discuss.