Increasing the housing supply may bring the cost of housing down a little, but it could merely lead to even more people coming out from London to buy up houses on the Crossrail line. We need to be sure that we have sufficient housing supply for local people, especially the young and those on modest or average incomes. I would therefore urge the Council to specify a minimum of 40% social housing on every new development, plus a further 35% "affordable". I support more older or disabled people's housing, especially in the villages, to enable older people to downsize and free up housing for families..

It is difficult for a lay person to gainsay the evidence but on the basis that the evidence is sound, there can be no disputing that the implications for the Borough in terms of increasing the supply of housing to the extent proposed will be enormous.

UDC supports paragraphs 38 to 68. These paragraphs set out the scale of need in Brentwood in the latest SHMA (7,600 dwellings), and the supply set out in the new plan to meet that need (8,263 dwellings). The plan also makes reference to potential higher figures coming through the government's standardised methodology and how they can seek to meet this need (through accelerating the delivery of Dunton Hills Garden Village).

UDC supports Brentwood's position of meeting its housing needs within the district, and its consideration of how to continue to do so if housing requirements are increased.

We welcome the Council's acceptance to prepare a Plan designed to meet the full Objectively Assessed Housing Need (OAHN). The work undertaken by PBA on behalf of the Council and contained in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment Part 1 (January 2018) (SHMA) appears to be a robust and up to date assessment of OAHN. The Council are therefore correct to rely upon this evidence in the current stage of the local plan process.
As stated in paragraph 7.18 of the SHMA though Objectively Assessed Need is not a science. Small changes in input data over time can have significant impacts on the levels of need. The NPPF (paragraph 158) urges Councils in preparing their local plans to ensure they use the most up to date and relevant evidence. We would therefore urge the Council to ensure that the OAHN is monitored closely and kept under review as the later stages of the local plan process progress. In the meantime, we are satisfied that the conclusion to seek to meet the full OAHN of 380 dwellings per annum is robust and a sound element of the current Regulation 18 consultation draft.
We also support the Regulation 18 consultation draft where it properly notes that the Government's proposed standardized objectively assessed housing needs methodology indicates a need for Brentwood to deliver a capped figure of 454 dwellings per annum. The Promoters fully support the Council's approach to recognizing the implications of adopting the standardized methodology and are fully engaged in the Council's appropriate investigation of how DHGV might contribute towards meeting this higher figure. Further comment is contained in paragraph 2.5.4 of these representations.
See additional documents

Housing Need and Supply -
ECC acknowledges BBC's work that seeks to meet housing needs in full over the Plan period (7,600/380 dpa) and supports the 20 year Plan period (2013 - 2033). This would deliver the Borough's housing need in full, and support the projected number of jobs/workers forecast in the Plan period. ECC supports the prioritisation of bringing forward brownfield sites and all appropriate land within existing urban areas, and through maximising density where appropriate. This will direct development towards existing settlements, particularly those that already benefit from access to a range of services and access to sustainable transport modes. However, in doing so any strategy will need to demonstrate that the level of growth can be accommodated by the existing and new social and physical infrastructure.

ECC acknowledges that BBC will need to be satisfied that the Local Plan is supported by a proportionate evidence base and that all reasonable alternatives have been considered.

Following its response to the 2016 consultation, ECC continues to seeks further clarification on a number of issues in relation to the proposed spatial strategy including:
* how the A127 Corridor provides more opportunities for growth than the A12 Corridor;
* identification of any cross border implications of the spatial strategy given its role as highway, education, minerals and waste, and lead local flood authority, and public health responsibilities;
* identification of what infrastructure is necessary to deliver the spatial strategy, strategic and individual site allocations; and
* a full assessment of the highway and transportation implications of the proposed spatial strategy, both in terms of the impacts of the individual preferred site allocations, and cumulatively.

ECC therefore withholds support until the appropriate highway modelling has been undertaken, to assess both the site specific and cumulative impacts of such developments on the local, and wider, highway network.

Thank you and refer to your letter of the 2nd February. In response please note that I object to these proposals because of the following: The infrastructure in Brentwood and the surrounding villages can simply not cope with the additional number of people and vehicles that the proposed development will create. The road system in, around and through Brentwood is already under extreme pressure during the school and working rush hour. Our schools are at capacity and over-crowded and our NHS / doctor services are exposed and not able to cope with the number of patients they already have. The majority of planned development is to be built on greenbelt land, which I do not consider to be necessary. The greenbelt is there to protect us and to support the environment. We can not afford to lose this for the sake of expensive housing only to make developers rich! Once gone it is irreversible. The planned housing is not aimed at first time buyers but will end up being marketed as 'executive housing' and out of reach by all but the very wealthy. The disruption the planned building will have for many years in and around Brentwood does not bear thinking about. As already mentioned the road system can not cope as it stands. The additional construction traffic will only add to the problem. It will also create an unacceptable level of pollution from both the construction and then, once built, the additional environmental effect the additional housing and vehicles will generate. This is particularly relevant to the vast Dunton Garden Village site which will back on to the A127 and A128 junction, never mind the additional traffic that is going to head that way once the new Thames crossing is build. The developers always under estimate and the planning committees always accept that there will be less cars allocated to each property. In the relatively recent development of apartments that was built at the entrance to the village of West Horndon the cars now park on the road causing a danger to other road users and pedestrians. I fear the same will be replicated in all future developments planned which will lead to further snarling up of our road system. A high proportion of people living in and around Brentwood work and commute into London on a daily basis. The C2C trains running into London from West Horndon are already over-crowded and unable to cope with the number of passengers they have. Adding thousands of new commuters to the line, even if a new station were to be built, simply doesn't add up. The infrastructure simply can't cope. Brentwood is a pleasant place in which to live. I have lived here all my life and chose to remain when raising my family. I fear that the proposed developments will cause huge harm to the town and on a wider scale to the environment. The infrastructure we have will not cope and it will, as a result, become a place that I, and I fear many others, will have to leave. Please accept this as my formal objection to the planning proposals BBC have set out in their Brentwood Development Plan.

Green Belt Land - edge of Ingatestone: 079A - 57 units; 106 - 41 units; 128 - 120 units; Total 218. There is an identified need in Ingatestone & Fryerning Parish for affordable and social housing both for sale and for rent and with adequate parking.
A high proportion of the 4,785 residents are over 65 years old (25.5%)and there is a distinct lack of young people as they cannot afford to rent commercially or buy properties near their families and friends. The existing housing stock has 831 detached houses, representing 37.7% of dwellings (England average is 22.3%; 749 semi-detached houses ie 34% of dwellings (England average 30.7%); only 12.4% of are terraced houses as against an England average of 24.5% and as regards flats, there are 275 purpose built ones which is 12.5% of the dwellings (England average is 16.7%) and 64 flats are conversions which equates to 2.9% as against an England average of 5.4% Only 204 properties are social rented which is 9.7% of our households as against an England average of 17.7%, and a further 206 properties are privately rented - again, below the England average. We therefore need housing to be built that meets these identified needs ie small affordable units.
We do not need larger houses that most likely will attract outside buyers.
There should also be restrictions of sale and rent to people not connected to the locality. Local representation should be present at discussions with developers who show an interest in building these units. It is hoped that Housing Associations would be in the mix and properties should be of an interesting design and construction so as to leave a legacy to future generations. Ingatestone & Fryerning has three conservation areas from different periods that add value to the life of the villages.

Having looked through your on-line information, I would like to stress one particular point, in that, there are a great many people of pensionable age who would like to move from their own homes to retirement living and there are simply not enough builds of this sort in the Brentwood area to allow it. My own experience of moving 18 months ago was that I did not own one of the more expensive houses in Shenfield, but even so, there was nowhere I could move to within Shenfield/Billericay/Brentwood at an affordable price and so, luckily, I found a flat at x (address), residential flats for over 60's. This would not have been my first choice but it is actually ideal and I would like this sort of accommodation to be high on your list of new housing - it should also be kept in mind that in addition this releases larger, older, existing properties and maybe the number of new builds could then be lessened. It makes sense and with GOOD planning, may make the need to swallow up our fields and open spaces less likely. I would also like to say that an improvement on the type of shops in Brentwood would be a great advantage. At the moment we have so very few shops of quality and if we had, this would enhance the quality of the high street in general - which, by the way, would also benefit from cleaning. In short, whatever your plan, please give more thought to the existing residents, doctor and hospital facilities, which at the moment are woeful, schools and traffic all of which will be made unbearable by the addition of new housing with all that brings.

I object to the entire plan for more housing in and around the Brentwood area. The roads are currently congested, so building new properties will bring in extra traffic which will make the matter worse. There are not enough car parks already and some of the sites will be taking over current car parks, making the matter worse. There are not enough doctors, so more people living in Brentwood will make the matter worse. The trains are currently crowded, so more people will make the matter worse. Just because there is land available, I don't believe it should be taken over and built on. I wholeheartedly object to the entire plan.

I object these proposals because there will be an irreversible impact to our already damaged environment should they take place in the end. We are already suffering in our steps the continuous destruction of green areas in and around Basildon- there seems to be no hesitation to cut down hundreds of trees to build expensive houses. We should fight these irresponsible measures. I think we owe it to our children.

The following are all valid reasons why the proposal should be dropped: Diminishing green belt land; reduced flood plain surface area; extra strain on healthcare.

The following are all valid reasons why the proposal should be dropped: increased road traffic congestion; that extra passenger load on the C2C railway line.

I object because of the following points: 1) Brentwood is unable to fulfill any of the proposed housing targets due to the greenbelt constraints which are a material restriction; 2) There are ample brownfield sites, nationally, to fulfill housing need; 3) Brentwoods growth, to 2033, is estimated to be from people moving into Brentwood Borough this cannot be relied upon until the EU referendum is completed

Strategic Objectives
I agree with and support SO1, SO2 SO3, SO6, SO15, SO16, SO17, SO18 and SO22
I disagree with and object to SO4 and SO7

Housing Need
On page 18 the 2014 DCLG household projections reveals, when converted to dwellings, an increase from 322 to 348 net new dwellings is the starting point for the annual objectively assessed need for housing. This is lower than the 362 dwellings figure in the Draft Local Plan (2016).
Due to the worsening of the affordability ratio in Brentwood and the increased costs of rental levels, I conclude there is a need for a reasonable upwards move in the proportion of new dwellings that are affordable. The higher price of housing implies greater profits from developments. This allows for a higher percentage of affordable housing to be delivered. The exact figure needs to be tested for viability but I expect mixed housing at 50% or above affordable housing should be achievable on sites of 15 or more new homes qualifying for affordable housing delivery. There is a ready supply of housing currently available through estate agents that could be termed unaffordable housing for those on or below average pay. The need for affordable housing, rental and purchase, can more truly be called 'need'. As the proportion of affordable housing delivered through new housing developments increases the total number of new houses required to deliver the needed number of affordable new homes can be reduced. If, as many are predicting and is expected due to leaving the EU, housing costs starts to fall, the proportion of affordable housing delivered from new developments would have to fall but general affordability would be improving at the same time. I reject the DCLG proposed new standard formula for housing need. Government schemes boosting the supply of money for new houses, buy-to-let investment schemes and other investment vehicles (UK and foreign) have distorted the market for housing artificially inflating prices, I therefore reject the adoption of 380 dwellings per annum as the OAHN.
The OAHN of 348 dwellings per annum equates to 6,960 dwellings across the plan period (2013-33).
2,109 or 30% have already been built, have planning permission or are expected to come through windfall delivery.
1,732 or 25% can be built on urban and other brownfield sites.

Green Belt
On page 34 at 74 it says "Government policy states that Traveller sites (temporary or permanent) in the Green Belt are inappropriate development, which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. The PPTS states that Green Belt boundaries should be altered only in exceptional circumstances." This is the only reference to the need for exceptional circumstances in the document but paragraph 83 of the NPPF says "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances" but we are not told what these are or if there any. Paragraph 87 makes it even clearer saying "As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances."

Green Belt is meant to be a restraint. Paragraph 87 of NPPF states "The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence." This Draft Plan has lost sight of this. Much of the currently open Green Belt would be lost to housing despite NPPG advise:-
In decision taking, can unmet need for housing outweigh Green Belt Protection? Unmet housing need (including for traveller sites) is unlikely to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and other harm to constitute the "very special circumstances" justifying inappropriate development on a site within the Green Belt. Planning Practice Guidance, Housing and economic land availability assessment, Methodology - Stage 5: Final evidence base, 6 March 2014. Paragraph 034 Reference ID: 3-034-20141006 from the NPPG

The Council do not have sufficient grounds to believe that the unmet need for housing or any other very special circumstances should apply here or could in combination constitute the very special circumstances required.

Green Belt serves five purposes:
●● to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas;
●● to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another;
●● to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment;
●● to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and
●● to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land

To varying degrees at each site, now in Green Belt, there would be harm done to these purposes.

Green Belt is meant to direct development elsewhere. In this Draft Plan 4,327 new homes, or 70% of the 6,154 to be built, are to be directed to former Green Belt land. On top of this, employment site 187 south of East Horndon Hall, would also be lost from Green Belt. This is unrestrained growth, it negates the aim and purposes of Green Belt.

That said, the harm done to Green Belt is different at different sites. Brownfield development in Green Belt may not be inappropriate. It is true that many of the chosen sites are already compromised by some buildings on site or around it or proximity of the railway or A12.

I object to the 2,500 (potentially rising to 3,500) new homes at Dunton Hills.

I object to sites 076 and 077 at Blackmore and 075B and 194 at Kelvedon Hatch.

I take it that the Council is under threat from central government to find space within the borough without encroaching on the green belt for 6500 homes, schools, shops, jobs, roads, doctors surgeries, and recreation facilities, for their occupants. You know and I know it can't be done. The Lib Dems know it can't be done so they criticise but have no alternative suggestions. The council has tried valiantly to come up with suggestions but it is hard to know which ones are serious. Building on the town centre car parks appears to be calculated to kill the town centre stone dead. The proposal says the solution is to find alternative town centre parking! How about park and ride? Although it is not obvious where from as any possible site would be a candidate for housing! The William Hunter Way car park is not big enough as it is to meet the current demand. What about putting up a multi-story car park? If Sainsburys can do it without drama, why can't the council? It seems to me blindingly obvious that the only possible route to achieving such a housing objective is to build them on green belt land, of which there is a huge amount around Brentwood, along with new schools, shops, surgery and proper connecting roads to and around the town and not build on the central car parks, nor to bull doze the potential places of employment. Without such a move, the objective of accommodating 6500 new homes is doomed to failure. Building near the A128 behind Orchard Lane or Hatch Road would ease the road access need but not the rest of the infrastructure requirements. I understand there was a proposal to develop the land behind the Hatch Road Nisa store; why has there been no mention of that? Even if development is this area were to go ahead, it would exacerbate the A128 log jam to Wilsons Corner in the rush hour of which you will be well aware. It all points to the fact that the Brentwood infrastructure is saturated even before further expansion is embarked upon.

1. The building of unaffordable houses for people and destroying Greenbelt for monetary gain for the developers is unacceptable & immoral. The LDP shows land miss represented as Brownfield when it is most certainly Greenbelt in the current house market, householder need to upgrade by 200,000 pounds at least, this housing is not affordable for our younger generations

2. Our precious greenbelt provides fresh air alleviating pollution from east the A127, as records show the A127 is exceeding levels of pollution & there is now talk of emission charge ! The woodland & Greenbelt are needed to counteract these pollution levels.

3. These areas have inhabitants of precious Wildlife & will be adversely affected & lost forever -sites of SSI are in place for a reason as is protected Greenbelt -this can not be the allocated

4.All of our facilities are stretched -overburdened roads , GP surgeries ,schools , hospitals -A127 , A128 & Billericay roads are at a standstill certain times of the day -roads are at breaking point . There is no infrastructure for these said unaffordable
Houses. The area is highly congested already causing pollution

5.The figures are completely manipulated why If this is a local plan it is common knowledge that the homes are for executive for those coming from outside if the area .

6.the actual numbers of houses needed is not quantifiable not necessary or needed with the EU brexit we have no idea how many people will be here after these figures you have grabbed we're prior to the referendum last year

1. The building of unaffordable houses for people and destroying Greenbelt for monetary gain for the developers is unacceptable & immoral. The LDP shows land miss represented as Brownfield when it is most certainly Greenbelt in the current house market, householder need to upgrade by 200,000 pounds at least, this housing is not affordable for our younger generations

2. Our precious greenbelt provides fresh air alleviating pollution from east the A127, as records show the A127 is exceeding levels of pollution & there is now talk of emission charge ! The woodland & Greenbelt are needed to counteract these pollution levels.

3. These areas have inhabitants of precious Wildlife & will be adversely affected & lost forever -sites of SSI are in place for a reason as is protected Greenbelt -this can not be the allocated

4.All of our facilities are stretched -overburdened roads , GP surgeries ,schools , hospitals -A127 , A128 & Billericay roads are at a standstill certain times of the day -roads are at breaking point . There is no infrastructure for these said unaffordable
Houses. The area is highly congested already causing pollution

5.The figures are completely manipulated why If this is a local plan it is common knowledge that the homes are for executive for those coming from outside if the area .

6.the actual numbers of houses needed is not quantifiable not necessary or needed with the EU brexit we have no idea how many people will be here after these figures you have grabbed we're prior to the referendum last year

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

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

Such a small area for 2x 10 houses, not in keeping with the rest of the area

Popular green space used by local residents and Tips cross hall, would be a real shame to lose more green space. It encourages the community to be active, this has been used for softball matches and all sorts.

This is one of the few useable green spaces in Hook End, the rest being farmland etc.
This would have a marked impact on the local community.

I would like to know if the growth forecasts have taken into account the expected decline in residents as a result of Brexit. Are these house actually needed?

Losing more greenbelt that acts as a lung to London would also be detrimental
Are there not brownfill sites that could be utilised in preference?

I fully support the Draft Local Plan. My views are as follows: Pros: There is a chronic shortage of housing in the Brentwood area. Housing Prices are at an unsustainable level and for our family to move up the ladder as the current price levels appear unachievable for what we would like. Building more houses of various types will allow the market to move more freely. Sites that are deliverable within the next 5 years should be seriously considered. Logical sites like the Mascalls Lane site which serves not clear purpose other than disused scrubland should be given priority. Cons: My main concern overall is the infrastructure within the area. Brentwood is at gridlock in the morning and more properties will provide further strain on this.

I object to these proposals as it would greatly affect the surrounding area spoil and deface the beautiful countryside. Bringing more development without sufficient infrastructure would greatly increase crime rates anti divide behaviour and a drain on local facilities.

I am a resident of West Horndon who has supported the development of the industrial site for housing (subject to provision being made for the employment provided by the current Industrial Estate ), however, I would like to make a formal objection to the Draft Local Plan for the following reasons: *Development proposals are concentrated in one area of the Borough and the reasoning for doing so has not been evidenced; *The proposed protection of the green belt in BBC's area is not equitable across the Borough, the reasons need to be explained; *Infrastructure plans have not been developed to incorporate the accelerated growth plans e.g. the C2C station in West Horndon is unlikely to be suitable for a further 2500-5000 Brentwood residents commuting per day; *The sustainability of the area has not been properly examined in that employment opportunities are to be reduced to a bare minimum, yet residential dwellings will be substantially increased - both should be improved; *current health facilities are good, but already stretched and the Plan is not clear of how these will be improved; and *The Statement of Community Involvement has not been adhered to; and *Essential environmental assessments have not been undertaken. Given the Draft Local Development Plan has not been properly evidenced, the Plan should not be approved, instead directions should be given *to revisit the assessments undertaken of the impact on West Horndon and neighbouring areas, *the preservation of all villages should be maintained or sound reasons given for changing a village substantially; and Full & proper consultation MUST be undertaken.

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

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

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

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

Paragraph 63:

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

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

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

Site 102:

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

Sites 044 and 178:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Regardless of a change in plan; I wonder how a local government can allow someone to let two properties like those on 92 & 94 Hatch road be left to rot, look dreadful, cause damage to neighbours etc etc!!!

With properties in high demand and the council saying that they cannot purchase these (assume no council tax is being paid for either) I find it shocking.

Dear Sir / Madam
Thanks for the letter dated 2/2/18 regarding the above plan.
I would think that at the Brentwood Borough will not accommodate more housing in any form. It seems it is getting more crowded. This might eventually results in losing the special taste of the area as a whole.
Best Regards

With regards the development plans for Brentwood and surrounding areas, I am hereby objecting most strongly. I object because bit by bit, we are losing out greenbelt. Portion by portion, we are losing our beautiful countryside to bricks, mortar, tarmac and cement. We have a beautiful heritage in this area. A heritage that should be protected from further building. We have beautiful wildlife living in our beautiful countryside. Gradually, the wildlife of this country is being annihilated. We are losing our countryside. We need our open spaces. With the mounting pollution, we need the oxygen only nature can provide. I can't even walk in Brentwood during the summer months as the fumes are so viciously strong. Our health is already suffering, take away anymore open spaces and you take away the green lung of nature. With health, at the moment, there is a six weeks waiting list to see a doctor. We simply haven't the medical resources to support more people moving into the area. The traffic, especially at school times, is chaotic and manic. There is serious danger of frequent accidents. The roads are literally crumbling away, sink holes appearing in lots of places. Subsidence is ruining homes too. There are no more places at school for the already long waiting lists of children. There is no room for more. Laindon has frequently been referred to as the Concrete Jungle, it's heartbreaking to think of that Concrete Jungle sweeping across Essex. I object to the destruction of what should be a country town. We don't want to be a city. We don't want to be part of London. We don't want the crime rates to continue to escalate. We want our town to remain a small town. We want the various areas to be preserved. There is no need to expand to such a horrendous degree. We don't need and we can't cope with such a huge influx of people. This is our town. We want it to remain our town. I object very strongly to this council selling off our land, our heritage. It isn't necessary.

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.

Brentwood cannot cope at peak times with the traffic it already has. Similarly, parking is already a problem in and around the town, both in Brentwood and in Shenfield.

Crescent drive, on a school day morning is a solid traffic jam from London road to Middleton road, putting 55 family houses with multiple cars on top of that, when people need to get to the hospital is madness.

Priests lane has a similar issue and the local area cannot sustain this many houses, people or cars.

Despite being a wealthy council, money seems not to be spent where necessary, for example I am a wheelchair user and cannot get to the end of my road unaided due to the massive potholes in the pavement.

7000 homes over 5 years in the Brentwood and Shenfield area is insanity.