We have lived in Brentwood since 1965 and moved to our present address in June, 1968. We consider that if the draft plan is put into effect it will ruin Brentwood.

Shortly after we moved to Nags Head Lane, an application was submitted to build 38 houses / bungalows between the existing houses and the railway line, as "in-fill". Quite rightly, Planning rejected the application, largely on the grounds that the site was in Green Belt. Now the Council itself is proposing that 1,827 dwellings should be constructed in Green Belt. Such a cavalier suggestion reveals not only an appalling lack of concern for the importance of the Green Belt, but also would also provide a very dangerous precedent for future possible proposals.

Of the proposed 1,827 dwellings, 125 are in Nags Head Lane: an increase of more than 200%. The proposed site access is close to the dangerous double bend under the railway bridge. Normal traffic is now at times heavy; when there are problems on the motorway or at the M25 roundabout (not uncommon) the Lane quickly becomes heavily congested. The proposal is a recipe for chaos. Yet "Site Constraints" for this site does not mention traffic flow, nor does it consider Green Belt a constraint.

Both this site and the one in Honeypot Lane are in the parish of St Peter South Weald and thus the local school is in South Weald village. This is an outstanding school that is already very over-subscribed and has been refused permission to expand. If the Draft Plan goes ahead, not only will more and more parents be disappointed, but children will face problems reaching schools to which they have been allocated elsewhere in increasingly congested Brentwood.

A considerable increase in the amount of traffic in the town centre is inevitable, but under this plan most of the surface car parks would be built upon. How is it possible to reconcile the removal of so much car parking with the encouragement of more cars? The only acknowledgement of this problem is the glib statement: "...sufficient levels of car parking will need to be provided." This begs a vital question - sufficient for what? Certainly not sufficient to make up for the amount of parking space that will be destroyed.

Provision of health care is dealt with in an equally sketchy manner. We will give three quotations on this extremely important subject. "...it is not always an easy task to analyse the impact of new housing on the current healthcare infrastructure and indeed plan for new infrastructure." (page 46); "The proposed range of housing growth is likely to further intensify the number of patients per GP." (p. 47); "...a number of practices may be under pressure in terms of patient numbers and potential healthcare issues.)" (p. 47). At least there is a realisation of a problem here. But on such a vital matter a delay in addressing these issues is not acceptable; it certainly does not fill the residents of Brentwood with optimism! There is no indication that anything constructive has been done.

In addition to lack of protection for the Green Belt, there is other evidence of little concern for the environment. Three of the sites are in or next to Conservation Areas: 041, 040 and 039. There are even more bordering on Local Wildlife Sites: 034, 081, 117A, 117B, 194 and 263.

Regarding other aspects of the proposed sites: there are three with water courses crossing them, and no fewer than nine that the Plan admits are subject to flooding.

We would be ashamed to submit to the public a formal document containing spelling mistakes: "accomodation", "equaled", "endeavoring". This may seem a minor point compared with our comments above, but it is indicative of the lack of care and attention to detail of the Plan overall.

We have lived in Brentwood since 1965 and moved to our present address in June, 1968. We consider that if the draft plan is put into effect it will ruin Brentwood.

Shortly after we moved to Nags Head Lane, an application was submitted to build 38 houses / bungalows between the existing houses and the railway line, as "in-fill". Quite rightly, Planning rejected the application, largely on the grounds that the site was in Green Belt. Now the Council itself is proposing that 1,827 dwellings should be constructed in Green Belt. Such a cavalier suggestion reveals not only an appalling lack of concern for the importance of the Green Belt, but also would also provide a very dangerous precedent for future possible proposals.

Of the proposed 1,827 dwellings, 125 are in Nags Head Lane: an increase of more than 200%. The proposed site access is close to the dangerous double bend under the railway bridge. Normal traffic is now at times heavy; when there are problems on the motorway or at the M25 roundabout (not uncommon) the Lane quickly becomes heavily congested. The proposal is a recipe for chaos. Yet "Site Constraints" for this site does not mention traffic flow, nor does it consider Green Belt a constraint.

Both this site and the one in Honeypot Lane are in the parish of St Peter South Weald and thus the local school is in South Weald village. This is an outstanding school that is already very over-subscribed and has been refused permission to expand. If the Draft Plan goes ahead, not only will more and more parents be disappointed, but children will face problems reaching schools to which they have been allocated elsewhere in increasingly congested Brentwood.

A considerable increase in the amount of traffic in the town centre is inevitable, but under this plan most of the surface car parks would be built upon. How is it possible to reconcile the removal of so much car parking with the encouragement of more cars? The only acknowledgement of this problem is the glib statement: "...sufficient levels of car parking will need to be provided." This begs a vital question - sufficient for what? Certainly not sufficient to make up for the amount of parking space that will be destroyed.

Provision of health care is dealt with in an equally sketchy manner. We will give three quotations on this extremely important subject. "...it is not always an easy task to analyse the impact of new housing on the current healthcare infrastructure and indeed plan for new infrastructure." (page 46); "The proposed range of housing growth is likely to further intensify the number of patients per GP." (p. 47); "...a number of practices may be under pressure in terms of patient numbers and potential healthcare issues.)" (p. 47). At least there is a realisation of a problem here. But on such a vital matter a delay in addressing these issues is not acceptable; it certainly does not fill the residents of Brentwood with optimism! There is no indication that anything constructive has been done.

In addition to lack of protection for the Green Belt, there is other evidence of little concern for the environment. Three of the sites are in or next to Conservation Areas: 041, 040 and 039. There are even more bordering on Local Wildlife Sites: 034, 081, 117A, 117B, 194 and 263.

Regarding other aspects of the proposed sites: there are three with water courses crossing them, and no fewer than nine that the Plan admits are subject to flooding.

We would be ashamed to submit to the public a formal document containing spelling mistakes: "accomodation", "equaled", "endeavoring". This may seem a minor point compared with our comments above, but it is indicative of the lack of care and attention to detail of the Plan overall.

We have lived in Brentwood since 1965 and moved to our present address in June, 1968. We consider that if the draft plan is put into effect it will ruin Brentwood.

Shortly after we moved to Nags Head Lane, an application was submitted to build 38 houses / bungalows between the existing houses and the railway line, as "in-fill". Quite rightly, Planning rejected the application, largely on the grounds that the site was in Green Belt. Now the Council itself is proposing that 1,827 dwellings should be constructed in Green Belt. Such a cavalier suggestion reveals not only an appalling lack of concern for the importance of the Green Belt, but also would also provide a very dangerous precedent for future possible proposals.

Of the proposed 1,827 dwellings, 125 are in Nags Head Lane: an increase of more than 200%. The proposed site access is close to the dangerous double bend under the railway bridge. Normal traffic is now at times heavy; when there are problems on the motorway or at the M25 roundabout (not uncommon) the Lane quickly becomes heavily congested. The proposal is a recipe for chaos. Yet "Site Constraints" for this site does not mention traffic flow, nor does it consider Green Belt a constraint.

Both this site and the one in Honeypot Lane are in the parish of St Peter South Weald and thus the local school is in South Weald village. This is an outstanding school that is already very over-subscribed and has been refused permission to expand. If the Draft Plan goes ahead, not only will more and more parents be disappointed, but children will face problems reaching schools to which they have been allocated elsewhere in increasingly congested Brentwood.

A considerable increase in the amount of traffic in the town centre is inevitable, but under this plan most of the surface car parks would be built upon. How is it possible to reconcile the removal of so much car parking with the encouragement of more cars? The only acknowledgement of this problem is the glib statement: "...sufficient levels of car parking will need to be provided." This begs a vital question - sufficient for what? Certainly not sufficient to make up for the amount of parking space that will be destroyed.

Provision of health care is dealt with in an equally sketchy manner. We will give three quotations on this extremely important subject. "...it is not always an easy task to analyse the impact of new housing on the current healthcare infrastructure and indeed plan for new infrastructure." (page 46); "The proposed range of housing growth is likely to further intensify the number of patients per GP." (p. 47); "...a number of practices may be under pressure in terms of patient numbers and potential healthcare issues.)" (p. 47). At least there is a realisation of a problem here. But on such a vital matter a delay in addressing these issues is not acceptable; it certainly does not fill the residents of Brentwood with optimism! There is no indication that anything constructive has been done.

In addition to lack of protection for the Green Belt, there is other evidence of little concern for the environment. Three of the sites are in or next to Conservation Areas: 041, 040 and 039. There are even more bordering on Local Wildlife Sites: 034, 081, 117A, 117B, 194 and 263.

Regarding other aspects of the proposed sites: there are three with water courses crossing them, and no fewer than nine that the Plan admits are subject to flooding.

We would be ashamed to submit to the public a formal document containing spelling mistakes: "accomodation", "equaled", "endeavoring". This may seem a minor point compared with our comments above, but it is indicative of the lack of care and attention to detail of the Plan overall.

I feel if this development goes ahead I believe it will have an immense impact on all local adjoining roads. At tile house surgery people have to wait up to three weeks to get an appointment if this development goes ahead people could die while waiting for an appointment with so many extra people in Brentwood. I also feel that schools would be unable to cope with the influx of extra children. Lastly I feel it is very important that green belt land is protected and not built upon.

I object because this development will swallow up a large proportion of green belt. Green belt is important to our environment, heritage and wellbeing. There will be a large loss of farmland and wildlife not to mention an increase in pollution which is already extremely high in this area and affecting health. This development will also increase the burden on the already struggling hospital in the area - and with the A&E departments in Southend and Chelmsford marked for closure - and Basildon hospital will be in crisis putting families and children at an extremely high risk.
The busy A127 already cannot cope with the sheer amount of traffic, adding more homes will naturally increase this. Secondary School places for those outside of the immediate area will also be affected, so where are our children expected to go?

There are plenty of brownfield sites that could be used for regeneration rather than destroying precious green belt.

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter of the 2nd February. We have carefully considered all documents relating to the Brentwood Development Plan.

The Plan which is fatally floored (for numerous reasons) must be re-visited we respectfully suggest to rectify errors and omissions.

The vast majority of building will be on Green Belt and we consider that the majority of houses will not be required in this area. Our observations and objections include the fact that more than 50% of the sites can be deemed de minimis development (where homes to be constructed total less than 5% of total development). Homes on these sites will be marketed in the price band of £1.5million to £2million pounds. Stratospherically beyond the reach of first time buyers or even purchasers assisted by the Bank of Mum and Dad.

Also, one might say fatally, the effect of the development termed Dunton Garden is misdescribed. It should be titled Dunton Pollution for the subsequent increase in vehicle numbers entering the A127 at the junction of the A 128 Brentwood Road. So close to a junction on that arterial road that is already so heavily polluted that Basildon Council intended to introduce a congestion charge. It is patently obvious that the two Councils concerned (Brentwood and Basildon) are in conflict. Basildon says too many vehicles use the A127 that there is a danger to health and Brentwood says let us allow another 10,000 vehicles or so onto this road. We would suggest that to endeavour to reduce the conflict you triple number of medical facilities in the Dunton development , this should assist in meeting demands caused by the dramatic increase in the number of vulnerable people, children and the elderly who will suffer asthma and respiratory disease.

Nobody of course knows when the vehicles arrive at the junction onto the A127 whether they will head left right or continue along the A128. However, this increase in traffic coupled with traffic from other sites including industrial/employment areas along the stretch of road leading to the junction with the M25 will no doubt increase levels of health harming pollutants that will overtake the whole area to include villages of Herongate and Ingrave and possibly even Brentwood town itself. It should be remembered that Schools and Care Homes are sited along the A128. The proposed development at Dunton completely ignores 2 critical facts (a) unless ALL housing is zoned as social housing the whole development will b unaffordable to first time purchasers.
Having tracked house prices in the Horndon area since the year 2000 a conservative estimate of house prices by 2030 would project to be £ 1million to £ 1.5 million pounds. Importantly (b) the only way these properties could be occupied by first time buyers would be through shared or joint ownership viz : with an aged parent or relative living in the property with a young couple which leads to further potential pollution additional victim and probably additional car owner , together with added strain on medical facilities.

Also and just as importantly the effect of the UK leaving the EU has not been factored into the Plan. We have yet to discover the number of residents in Brentwood who are dual nationals and entitled to reside in countries outside the UK. Taking into account medical, health and pharmacy workers, care home personnel and members of the professions together with retail outlet owners and their employees we estimate the number at between 3,000 and 4,000 (including dependents). The number for the whole of the UK exceeds five million(and rising). If negotiations with the EU lead to an adverse effect on the UK economy dual citizens will leave and settle in EU member states or indeed other countries of the World.

The Plan to concrete over the Green Belt and Farmland will have been proven to have been unnecessary yet lasting harm will have been inflicted on the people and their environment.

It is a fact that Developers are guilty of land banking, sitting on land where Planning Permission has been granted but failing to build, purely to increase profit through increase in land values.. Within the last 10 years these sites, if built upon, would have provided in excess of 800,000 homes in this Country. How many would have been affordable homes is a matter of conjecture, because the developers often inform Councils that they cannot afford to develop a site with the number of social units imposed, Councils are pressured to reduce the number of social dwellings planned originally.

Even when sites are developed the Builders are ensuring there are hardly any affordable houses built (see Report Guardian 5th March 2018). In Manchester none of the 14,667 homes in big developments granted Planning Permission in the last 2 years are set to be "affordable", Planning documents show - in direct contravention of its own rules and the Government's definition. In Sheffield where house prices grew faster last year than in any other UK city (but we would suggest Brentwood and Ingatestone would be closely behind). Only 97 out of 6,943 approved by Planners in 2016 and 2017 met the Government's affordable definition. That says homes must either be offered for social rent (often known as Council housing), or rented at no more than 80% of the local market rate. In Nottingham where the Council aims for 20% of new housing to be affordable just 3.8% of the units given the green light by Council Planners meet the definition. If Brentwood is not strict with developers the results will be the same as those mentioned (supra).

The Development Companies are responsible for shortage of housing in certain area, by drip feeding dwellings onto the market to increase house prices. This prevents , in particular, first time buyers from gaining a foot on the housing ladder. The dramatic decline in home ownership amongst the young does not lie with Parents or Grandparents but with people who control the supply of social housing.

The reasons set out in this communication should, we hope, send the Council (indeed all Councils) to review their respective Plans. They might consider halving the intended housing units to be built whilst leaving in position all infrastructure planned with medical facilities doubled to ensure all citizens timely access to health care and other amenities.

Yours faithfully,

a) Land bordering on Redrose Lane & Chelmsford Road, Blackmore
The comments below should be read in conjunction with the attached mark-up of page 85 from your document.
Currently, your draft plan calls for the land shown as Site References 076 & 077 to be included as Housing Sites - Larger Villages. These plots together are estimated to yield 40 dwellings each - Total 80. The plan however, does not include the land marked in red on the mark-up which had in previous 2016 version of the plan been referenced as plot 250 with an estimated dwelling capacity of 20 units. This site,
plot 250, is adjacent to plot 076 and therefore on the same side of Redrose Lane and therefore should be included in proposed dwellings because it is located in "the development area of the village" Also within the existing Local Plan, page 35 under "Settlement Hierarchy, Figure 14(part 1of 2)" it states under "Category 3 - Large Villages for 2016" Blackmore should have "estimated new dwelling numbers of 336. Obviously with 076, 077 and our plot 250 the total would be 100 plus dwellings well within the above figure. It can be seen from the mark-up that inclusion of this land forms a complete self-contained extension to the village giving a possibility for 100 plus dwellings. With the above in mind I would request as previously offered that plot 250 also be included as a Preferred Site Allocation together with Site References 076 & 0-77 in your draft plan. b) Land bordering on Chelmsford Road & Spriggs Lane. This land is also bounded by Elm Farm and Elm Park Court (mobile home site). Scope for building on this area is good as it is currently not used for any purpose and of limited agricultural use. It also lies within an area of the village which has some existing development. Scope would exist on this land for a further 15 to 20 dwellings. Consideration should also be given to including this land as a Preferred Site. I do not think the above suggestions would harm the characteristics of Blackmore as village, on the contrary they would enhance it by providing additional people and facilities to the area.

Please register my objection to these proposals to trash any of Brentwoods current greenbelt. My great grandad fought in the war so that following generations could enjoy our wonderful country and I don't want you to concrete over his and his contemporaries wonderful greenbelt legacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

Yours faithfully,

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

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

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

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

Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

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

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

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

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

Please accept my apologies for the delay in replying.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please register my objection to this current consultation for the following reasons;

1. The proposals, for housing, predominantly cater for many people that do not reside on this borough. BBC acknowledge that 80% of Brentwood population growth will be from people moving into the borough upto 2033

2. There is absolutely no need to build on greenbelt and greenbelt is a constraint for housing targets.

3. Green Belt is a material constraint 'which may restrain the ability of an authority to meets its need'. As perhttp://planningguidance.communities.gov.uk/blog/guidance/housing-and-economic-land-availability-assessment/stage-5-final-evidence-base/

I object to the proposals because of the following reasons. (1) The existing infrastructure is already overused, overstretched and any increase will have an adverse effect on the quality of life of the current residents. (2) Building on Green belt is frowned upon by the current Government, why can our Council ignore this. (3)Most , if not about 95%, of the houses to be built will be too expensive for the local residents or their children, and will only affordable for local London residents being forced out of their areas by monetary inducements.If their reason is moving for a lovely area, with green fields this plan will negate this. (4) Too many Traveller sites, as the area has above the local areas number already. (5) This decision is going against the democratic views, and is a decision made by greed on behalf of the current Council and Developers.

Preferred Site Allocations Consultation
Quadrillion Construction Ltd are a local Building & Development Contractor based in Ingatestone and therefore take a keen interest in local building affairs.
Following the prime minister's recent speech at the Royal Town Planning Institute conference we whole heartedly support the strategy a) not to sacrifice green belt on the altar of new homes, b) make better use of brownfield sites, c) green belt sites exist not to preserve landscapes but to prevent urban sprawl, d) look at sites that have previuosly been built on rather than opting for virgin countryside.
ANY site chosen for development must not cause substantial harm to the environment or cause the loss of ancient woodland, local wildlife sites and natural watercourses.
We therefore oppose development of the sites particularly allocated as 263, 276,034,235,087 & 158 along the A12 corridor as items a-d above applies in all respects.
We do support the brownfield sites initiatives and in some instances where green belt is within settlement boundaries, where services and infrastructure can be extended and utilised. Provided Open Space was maintained this would be more readily accepted by the community, be less disruptive to deliver and therefore more expedient and have financial benefits of being more affordable.

Preferred Site Allocations Consultation
Quadrillion Construction Ltd are a local Building & Development Contractor based in Ingatestone and therefore take a keen interest in local building affairs.
Following the prime minister's recent speech at the Royal Town Planning Institute conference we whole heartedly support the strategy a) not to sacrifice green belt on the altar of new homes, b) make better use of brownfield sites, c) green belt sites exist not to preserve landscapes but to prevent urban sprawl, d) look at sites that have previuosly been built on rather than opting for virgin countryside.
ANY site chosen for development must not cause substantial harm to the environment or cause the loss of ancient woodland, local wildlife sites and natural watercourses.
We therefore oppose development of the sites particularly allocated as 263, 276,034,235,087 & 158 along the A12 corridor as items a-d above applies in all respects.
We do support the brownfield sites initiatives and in some instances where green belt is within settlement boundaries, where services and infrastructure can be extended and utilised. Provided Open Space was maintained this would be more readily accepted by the community, be less disruptive to deliver and therefore more expedient and have financial benefits of being more affordable.

The proposed development in the area of the village of Blackmore at Orchard Piece and Woollard Way both with proposed access via Red Rose Lane is wholly inappropriate in my opinion for the following reasons.

The addition of approx. 100 homes to the village is not supported by a commensurate increase in the infrastructure.

We would require major upgrades to utilities systems such as water, power, gas, roads, and communications.

The centre of the village is already dangerous for children and aging adults crossing to use the shop, cafe and post office.
The current parking facilities within the centre of the village are daily oversubscribed and often illegal, this situation is made worse by the high volume of traffic passing through.
The additional 100 homes proposed with an approximate increase of 50 vehicles would only add to the dangers.

The local primary school in Blackmore is already full and the possibility of an increase in demand for this or other local schools may not be met within the local education system.

There is a limited bus service which will put additional pressures on the roads with commensurate pressure on local roads that are not equipped to deal with this level of traffic.

The expansion of the village will put pressure on local roads - the proposed access via Red Rose Lane is completely laughable and inappropriate - has no one even looked at this road which is barely wide enough for 2 vehicles let alone an additional regular daily increase of approximately 200 cars that will put unacceptable pressure on local traffic through the village and local countryside.

The development in Orchard Piece with access via Red Rose Lane is again an ill thought out proposal, this is again barely wide enough for 2 cars with no passing places for vehicles the additional traffic will cause damage to the road which already suffers from use by heavy vehicles which damage the verges & pathways.
Flooding occurs regularly due to the high water table with the run off from fields and the poorly kept ditches overflowing that results in vehicles being inoperable having ingested this flood water and left abandoned.

There is no GP surgery within the parish and the local health centre already struggles to service the needs of the community

In summary the degradation of the environment around Blackmore is an unacceptable burden on the residents of the village and the proposed development does not represent a well thought out option to meet housing needs.

It is the local planning authority's responsibility to retain the status of Green Belt and the change of status of these two parcels of land is contradictory to their responsibility to retain the status of Green Belt.

This development does not meet the requirements for an exception to Green Belt development being not a limited infilling and/or limited affordable housing for local community needs, an increase of 28.6% does not represent a limited infill.

Surely there are previously developed sites (brownfield land) which would not have such a dramatic impact on the village.

Why have sites such as the areas alongside the A12 along the Rayleigh Road not been considered in this respect?

The proposal of 4 sites within an established Green Belt area are an unequitable allocation of additional housing within the Blackmore parish when other villages in the area have no houses being proposed.

I strongly object to these proposals.
The idea of putting 1,000s of house in Brentwood is absolute madness.
We live near the site in Doddinghurst road due to have 200+ houses built on a horse field, the traffic in this area ie Doddinghurst Road and Ongar road at rush hour and on Saturdays is appalling and makes going to the Town a bad option.
I also understand that some of the houses are being built on "Green belt" land, how is this even being thought of as ok? I understand brown land as it is already occupied but not on green belt, surely this goes against all of your own and government policies? As our local council i believe that you should be taking care and listening to your residents rather than just deciding that you can overrule your own rules?
These "Green belt" areas were fought to be kept by the wartime generation and is now a great legacy.
Definition of Green belt in the Collins English dictionary:
A green belt is an area of land with fields or parks around a town or city, where people are not allowed to build houses or factories by law.
(your own law)

In Elizabeth road alone you have spent many thousands of pounds putting up wooden barriers to protect the "green wards", as you will set the president i would say if you build on greenbelt then anyone can do the same and all residents will have the right to remove such barriers protecting the "green wards" or any other open space for that matter to use this area as they please. I object to these plans and will continue do so to the highest level possible.
I look forward to a reply and some answers if possible
Yours sincerely

I strongly object to these proposals.
The idea of putting 1,000s of house in Brentwood is absolute madness.
We live near the site in Doddinghurst road due to have 200+ houses built on a horse field, the traffic in this area ie Doddinghurst Road and Ongar road at rush hour and on Saturdays is appalling and makes going to the Town a bad option.
I also understand that some of the houses are being built on "Green belt" land, how is this even being thought of as ok? I understand brown land as it is already occupied but not on green belt, surely this goes against all of your own and government policies? As our local council i believe that you should be taking care and listening to your residents rather than just deciding that you can overrule your own rules?
These "Green belt" areas were fought to be kept by the wartime generation and is now a great legacy.
Definition of Green belt in the Collins English dictionary:
A green belt is an area of land with fields or parks around a town or city, where people are not allowed to build houses or factories by law.
(your own law)

In Elizabeth road alone you have spent many thousands of pounds putting up wooden barriers to protect the "green wards", as you will set the president i would say if you build on greenbelt then anyone can do the same and all residents will have the right to remove such barriers protecting the "green wards" or any other open space for that matter to use this area as they please. I object to these plans and will continue do so to the highest level possible.
I look forward to a reply and some answers if possible
Yours sincerely

We would formally like to object against the proposed planning for two of the sites outlined in the development proposal;
002 - Brentwood Station:
As commuters we rely on this carpark to enable us to commute to and from London and to build housing on this site would be a huge loss to the community and have a knock on effect on the local economy. Not to mention the fact this site is already overdeveloped with expensive flats where parking is already a huge issue and there has also been drug related issues reported which I feel is due to the concentration and type of housing that has already been developed in this area.
The carpark provides a place for those that live both inside and outside of the main Brentwood area and beyond to access the vital transport link. Whilst Shenfield provides parking the train fare and parking combined are an extortionate cost and not viable for local people as an alternative. Brentwood travel is accessible and the parking is essential given the location of the station and the fact that bus routes such as the 37 are being cut. The amount of money spent on crossrail I feel will be wasted if you sacrifice this fundamental resource as people will simple chose an alternative station to travel from and potentially move.
023A & 023B - Doddinghurst Road:
As local residents we feel the proposed 200 dwellings is completely unviable given the local infrastructure. The roads, schools and local resources are already stretched and simple cannot support an additional 200 houses. The area is overdeveloped and under resourced and as a result we strongly object to development on this site.
There are alternative sites which are closer to the high street and therefore won't rely so heavily on vehicle use. There is also alternatives in more undeveloped locations which we feel should be preferred location given the existing concentration of housing and people in this area.
General Comment:
I have lived in the local area since I was a child and was determined to secure my future in the area. I worked hard and brought a house in Brentwood at the age of 25 and am so proud to live here. Whilst I recognise the need to further develop the area I am hugely concerned about the proposed large scale development. The infrastructure and resources are already stretched and we are faced with exhaustive traffic, inadequate roads, long school and doctor waiting lists, empty shops and rising prices to name a few. Whilst your development plan has explored some of these areas it doesn't provide any assurance as a young person thinking of starting and growing a family here or recognise we already have issues. Such large scale development doesn't seem the answer to me and I am concerned that Brentwood will become another small city and loose its character and uniqueness which makes it so special. There needs to be a more in-depth consideration about the current issues before looking forward at development.
Unfortunately I fear that if such drastic plans go ahead millennials such as myself will be forced to look elsewhere and move out of Brentwood which will be such a shame. There is already a population bias in the area and the proposed development has the potential to force young people, families and working professionals out of the area and will only deepen the heavy percentage of middle age - ageing population in the area of which the latter places very specific demands and costs on local resources.

As this appears to be the best kept secret in Brentwood and was only brought to my attention yesterday evening, I have not had time to read the 104 page document. I would like to say, however, how concerned I am about a lack of publicity and communication on the part of the council regarding these plans. We are seeing a steady erosion of green spaces in Brentwood which is resembling an urban sprawl in the manner of Romford and Harold wood. Whilst we all understand the need for housing, there appears to be a complete lack of consultation with residents.

The road infrastructure within and around Brentwood is unable to cope with the current population of the town - how is it going to cope with the extra number of residents this plan would produce? I cant find any reference as to how you plan to cope with the resultant extra traffic. The town will come to a standstill and will become gridlocked. Also if you build on our car parks where are we going to park? A lack of parking will kill our High Street . Extra traffic will increase pollution and harm Brentwood residents, particularly the young and elderly. Brentwood will become overcrowded, which will ruin the pleasures of living here. This plan does little to attract me to continue to living in Brentwood.

The road infrastructure within and around Brentwood is unable to cope with the current population of the town - how is it going to cope with the extra number of residents this plan would produce? I cant find any reference as to how you plan to cope with the resultant extra traffic. The town will come to a standstill and will become gridlocked. Also if you build on our car parks where are we going to park? A lack of parking will kill our High Street . Extra traffic will increase pollution and harm Brentwood residents, particularly the young and elderly. Brentwood will become overcrowded, which will ruin the pleasures of living here. This plan does little to attract me to continue to living in Brentwood.

The road infrastructure within and around Brentwood is unable to cope with the current population of the town - how is it going to cope with the extra number of residents this plan would produce? I cant find any reference as to how you plan to cope with the resultant extra traffic. The town will come to a standstill and will become gridlocked. Also if you build on our car parks where are we going to park? A lack of parking will kill our High Street . Extra traffic will increase pollution and harm Brentwood residents, particularly the young and elderly. Brentwood will become overcrowded, which will ruin the pleasures of living here. This plan does little to attract me to continue to living in Brentwood.

The road infrastructure within and around Brentwood is unable to cope with the current population of the town - how is it going to cope with the extra number of residents this plan would produce? I cant find any reference as to how you plan to cope with the resultant extra traffic. The town will come to a standstill and will become gridlocked. Also if you build on our car parks where are we going to park? A lack of parking will kill our High Street . Extra traffic will increase pollution and harm Brentwood residents, particularly the young and elderly. Brentwood will become overcrowded, which will ruin the pleasures of living here. This plan does little to attract me to continue to living in Brentwood.

The Review lacks an allocation of urban brown land for housing to attract older Brentwood residents from houses that have become too big for them. This shortage of downshift-suitable housing is most noticeable in Shenfield, where once-numerous bungalows and smaller houses have been bought up and much-expanded by younger households.

The closure of the Bloodbank in Crescent Drive, midway between Brentwood and Shenfield, offers a rare opportunity to add downshift-appropriate houses to the Shenfield housing mix and, by recycling a number of the Bloodbank buildings, to create downshift-appropriate apartments as well.

Whilst I appreciate that the council has been handed a difficult and virtually impossible task, I have concerns over the some of the solutions proposed. My main objections concern:
a) Building houses on town centre car parks will deny access to residents and visitors from further afield, which will ultimately damage the viability of the high street as a retail/leisure amenity.
b) Building houses on the railway station carpark when there is a clear and proven requirement for the facility makes no sense whatsoever.
c) No cohesive plan to improve road capacity or parking (including in some cases residential), which are already fast-growing problems.
d) No cohesive plan to improve healthcare facilities (GP surgeries), which are already inadequate for the existing population.
e) Lack of clarity regarding replacement of employment land lost to proposed housing, which suggests that much of that employment will disappear.
f) Allowing the Eagle and Child to be demolished would not just mean the loss of yet another pub/community hub, it would be the loss of an elegant and characterful building of which the town has far too few.
In summary, I believe that the balance created by the proposals would be wrong in terms population density versus healthcare facilities, employment (diversity), travel network, shops and leisure. I believe this will be detrimental to Brentwood as a town and place to live.

Whilst I appreciate that the council has been handed a difficult and virtually impossible task, I have concerns over the some of the solutions proposed. My main objections concern:
a) Building houses on town centre car parks will deny access to residents and visitors from further afield, which will ultimately damage the viability of the high street as a retail/leisure amenity.
b) Building houses on the railway station carpark when there is a clear and proven requirement for the facility makes no sense whatsoever.
c) No cohesive plan to improve road capacity or parking (including in some cases residential), which are already fast-growing problems.
d) No cohesive plan to improve healthcare facilities (GP surgeries), which are already inadequate for the existing population.
e) Lack of clarity regarding replacement of employment land lost to proposed housing, which suggests that much of that employment will disappear.
f) Allowing the Eagle and Child to be demolished would not just mean the loss of yet another pub/community hub, it would be the loss of an elegant and characterful building of which the town has far too few.
In summary, I believe that the balance created by the proposals would be wrong in terms population density versus healthcare facilities, employment (diversity), travel network, shops and leisure. I believe this will be detrimental to Brentwood as a town and place to live.

Request for inclusion of a site for development in the Local Plan.
Tooks Farm, Great Warley Street, Great Warley, CM13 3JP.

Having reviewed the recent Housing Strategy and Local Plan documents, it is clear that the Council is facing a number of significant challenges in relation to the provision of hous-ing. Affordability is a key issue, along with an ageing population trend which is predicted to continue. The council is falling far below the number of new homes it is required to pro-vide each year, and the documents acknowledge that this situation will be exacerbated by the Voluntary Right to Buy policy and its subsequent effect both on housing stock and fi-nancial resources for the housing sector. The Council's own figures estimate a need for approximately 233 affordable homes being built per year, whereas in recent years the fig-ure has averaged 39.

The Council's stated aims include maximising the delivery of affordable housing, including access to a range of different housing options for all residents. In addition, 'sustainable communities' and 'community living' should be achieved by new housing provision. This is reinforced by Government policy which directs local authorities to foster local economies through the provision of affordable housing. The Housing Strategy document acknowl-edges that wider thinking and innovation are required, and that the situation is an oppor-tunity to present alternatives when considering potential areas for development.

There have been a number of Government reports (HAPPI/Lifetime Homes) focussed on the need for appropriate housing for older people, which also identify the benefits of such housing within a mixed-age community. Quality, accessible apartments are ideal for many groups, not just older people, and I have seen a number of case studies, both in this country and overseas, incorporating affordable mixed-age social housing. Single person households are the fastest growing demographic in the UK, across all age groups, includ-ing vulnerable groups such as women who have suffered domestic violence.

The recent 'Grand Designs' awards for schemes providing accommodation for older peo-ple showcased very innovative architectural designs produced on a very modest budg-et. The Council has already identified some of the benefits of more innovative housing, such as increased provision through higher density and the more economical use of space, plus environmental and energy saving gains.

This type of housing also allows space for communal areas, which brings many benefits such as reduced isolation and shared interests. It can provide space for hobbies or busi-ness ideas, such as a workshops or allotment areas, whilst at the same time allowing con-trol of the appearance and maintenance of the wider environment.

I am the owner of a small farm situated on the B186 in Great Warley. The yard, compris-ing a range of metal storage barns, stabling blocks and workshops, is now largely redun-dant, and as such presents an ideal location to develop some of the innovative housing ideas the Council is considering. I would like the yard to be considered as a preferred site for housing development, as I believe it presents both a unique opportunity at this location, and the possibility of developing a model that could be replicated in other places.

A study by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors put forward the idea of local au-thorities identifying 'amberfield' sites, as an effective way of providing housing develop-ment opportunities without encroaching on green spaces. This type of site already has basic services (water, electricty, transport links), unsightly dilapidated building which add nothing to the local environment, but do offer the possibility of innovative housing which can be developed in a relatively short time frame.

As an alternative to inclusion in the Local Plan, I would like the yard to be considered as a Windfall Site.

I would appreciate feed back on this matter and an opportunity to discuss further.

Kind regards