There is clearly a lack of GPs now in the Brentwood area. At Beechwood surgery it is now 7 weeks for a routine doctors appointment. The situation has materially declined as we have built in Brentwood. As a condition of the local plan the council should mandate the inclusion of additional GP surgery space to make up for the previous lack. I would also recommend the council to speak to the surgeries, to get an analysis of average wait times - rather than seeming to rely on non-existent per thousand stats.

Healthcare - General Practice -
BBC should be advised that Public Health is the responsibility of ECC, in addition to the roles of the CCG.

ECC considers the information provided in paragraph's 97 to 105 and figure 17 of the consultation document provides a good general overview of the up to date evidence relating to GP's in the borough; however there is no consideration of the wider health implications that need to be addressed as part of the plan making process.

Supporting the design and creation of healthy communities is fundamental to the NPPF. ECC is supportive of the general objectives around health within the plan, but consider that these could be greatly enhanced. ECC therefore question if the Draft Plan, at present, ensures that the inclusion of health and wellbeing can be fully assured. This is due to the lack of specific policy on health and wellbeing or associated requirements for the submission of Health Impact Assessments (HIA) with planning applications.

ECC considers that without such policies, the opportunities to support the positive impacts that development can have on health, wellbeing and the wider determinants may be missed. In addition, any negative impacts on health could be more difficult to remove or be mitigated against. The allocation of Section 106 monies to health and wellbeing may also be challenged without the appropriate policy background.

The Essex Planning Officers Association (EPOA) support the use of HIA and have guidance notes on thresholds. HIA, as a material consideration, ensures health and wellbeing is addressed. ECC recommends that HIA is undertaken to inform the preparation of the Local Plan.

Priorities for public health within spatial planning include reducing health inequalities, by supporting access to quality open and green/blue space, healthy diets including improving access to local and fresh food, improving community cohesion and reducing social isolation, supporting air quality through active travel, increasing physical activity opportunities through increasing movement and play across all ages and supporting good quality housing design across the life course. EEC recommends that such matters should be considered as the plan progresses towards submission.

ECC Public Health has been engaged with the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA) on work around Garden Communities. In addition, Health and Wellbeing has been incorporated into the Essex Design Guide refresh and addresses Garden Community developments. ECC strongly encourage BBC to engage early with the ECC Director of Public Health and team for advice on healthy urban planning for this development.

In addition, ECC works closely with various health partners to support their healthcare estates including NHS England East and Community Health Partnership, on access of healthcare infrastructure and would be happy to be part of conversations with our partners to ensure that the whole health system is considered as part of the plan making process.

With regards to food retailers and premises, ECC would signpost BBC to the tool developed by the Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) on food geography. This enables local authorities to see the types of food outlets in their areas. It includes A5 premises (under a wider scope of fast food). ECC advises that the management of A5 premises should be considered as part of the plans overall health and wellbeing approach, together with some emerging evidence base on overconcentration of fast food outlets and obesity. There are a number of authorities developing and adopting specific A5 policies, and ECC would be happy to support BBC on building on these principles.

ECC Public Health is engaged with planning teams for many Essex Garden Community proposals. This is to ensure that healthy urban design principles are incorporated into the design and planning of these strategic sites. ECC wish to be engaged in any HIA process that would be part of the development planning for DHGV. The refresh of the Essex Design Guide (EDG) provides references/advice on garden principles, and Sport England provide guidance on active design principles and health.

ECC Public Health is supportive of lifetimes, adaptable homes. This would include housing design for older people. ECC encourages design to be inclusive and allow for accessibility. These aspects have been raised as part of the Essex Design Guide refresh. ECC also promotes dementia friendly community principles, such as those set out in the RTPI dementia friendly practice guidance.

On key worker homes and affordable housing for NHS key staff, ECC advise that discussions on workforce planning with NHS providers should be considered to support the development of their workforce strategies. This would support the health and wellbeing of communities and also access to healthcare infrastructure to which the workforce should be considered as an integral part (as per the NPPF).

With regard to specialist housing, ECC Public Health advise that the social care team at ECC should be engaged on this matter. The relevant CCG should also be engaged to ensure GP provision is available to support these specialist homes.

ECC support the inclusion of an air quality policy, as part of the overall health and wellbeing agenda. ECC recommend that this can be further supported by active travel encouragement.

Other references that may be of assistance are PHE health profiles and PHE guidance on planning and PH.

Hermes Investment Management notes the metric the NHS recommend for planning purposes in paragraph 99, but it is not clear how this relates to need in West Horndon

At paragraph 101,the Council has seemingly adopted its own metric to calculate need for health provision. It is unclear how this relates to the one recommended by the NHS.

I object to these proposals because

Infrastructure

The road infrastructure is already under severe strain currently if there are any incidents on the surrounding roads our villages of Herongate and Ingrave grind to a halt.
Our children are regularly late for school because the school bus is caught up in the traffic. The current level of fuel emissions from the cars in stationary traffic are already detrimental to the environment and have health implications how can you possibly consider adding to this.

The roads are currently poorly maintained with huge pot holes along the A128 if you cannot maintain these with the current levels of traffic how do you propose to maintain these with the significant increase in traffic.

Have c2c been approached to outline how they will cope with the impact of increased number passengers at either West Herndon or Upminster station or adding another station? Both station car parks are already at bursting point I cannot see evidence of consultation with the rail network on your plans


Affordable Housing

I am concerned the houses will not be affordable for first time buyers but will simply be priced at market rate so in reality there will be a proportion of affordable or social housing amongst houses in excess of £750k


Strain on NHS

Orsett hospital is closing, several hospital trusts are merging, given most of the hospitals were declaring black alert due to shortage of beds in a&e how do you propose they will cope with several thousand extra people in the area?


The council has deliberately misled residents

Why did our councillors blatantly lie to us with seemingly no repercussions about protecting the green belt?

Dear Sirs

I am writing to you in response to your letter seeking representations to the draft local plan.

I have looked through the plan and would like to oppose it.

Having looked at the proposed sites, it seems you have given absolutely no consideration to the local residents in the area. We have had a considerable about of development and new homes in the area in the past few years, and yet you want to remove even more land for new homes.

I understand the need for homes and using brownfield sites is preferable, but with one exception you are planning on using every car park in the vacinity of the town and high street, where do you expect people to park? Local residential streets are already over flowing with cars, causing chaos on certain roads, particularly those around the train station and Rollason Way. Likewise the station car park - where will commuters park? You state that the issue of commuter parking will need to be considered but you don't say how or where, how is that a legitimate plan? Surely you need to have a plan for this too? Or all those cars, and the car park is full on most days, will again be parking on local roads.

My main concern however is for facilities in the area. I already have to wait 4 weeks for an emergency GP appointment at Beechwood surgery, your figures already state that the surgery is below average in terms of numbers of GPs and nurses per resident in comparison to the UK average. With hundreds and hundreds of homes on the plan for Warley, how is this one surgery going to cope when already you have to wait 4 weeks for an emergency appointment - yes emergency!

If your development plan actually had a plan to accommodate these issues it would be easier to accept. But in the past you have continually built new homes without adding in any new facilities, despite saying you will, as such our facilities are already completely over stretched and not fit for purpose.

Realistically how can you propose to build even more homes before you fix the problems caused by the last round of building?

I look forward to your response.

Regards

Ms Miller

The healthcare section seems to provide little detail how these essential services will actually be provided. What is required is more GP's and hospital beds for the expanded population. I don't believe online services are going to be of use when it is impossible to get through to an overstretched GP practice already. We need clear guidance on how our expanded community will be cared for and how these GP's and beds will actually be provided.

SITE 102- WILLIAM HUNTER WAY CAR PARK = Site is an astonishingly poor choice. With the expanded population and shoppers wishing to visit the town where will people park? From Kelvedon Hatch we have a sparse bus service already. Using the car is the only option especially if wanting to visit in the evening for dinner. With the expanded use of the railway especially what facilities will there be? If we wish our town to be prosperous and want people to come and spend there hard earned money, we need to give them the opportunity to park. Otherwise they will just order online or visit lakeside where there are all the shops and free parking.

SITES 194 & 075B - I object to these sites do the the existing pressure that will be put on to local services and roads and the small overstretched GP surgery supporting the local community.

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

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 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.

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

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

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

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.