we already have travellers on curtis mill green (hunters green) which should not be there and already we are seeing vans and cars that have been stolen appearing up there and the man being arrested thus hasnt stopped them ,please no more travellers in this area the ploice do nthing to help when theres crime no one helps theres fly tipping all the time now in albyns lane this has got worst the green belt shouldbe protected they do not have grazing rights on here but still they leave their horses out and what a nusance they are but no one does any thing there is also a new dewlling that is being lived in and a buisness operating from it at the end of albyns lane where the black gates are this at one time 8years ago was just one stable and a horse and the gent that owned it couldnt even store a caravan there but now people are living in the makeshift hut around the back hidden by the fence ,but again no one does anything

It seems wholly unfair to position Brentwood traveller allocations as far from Brentwood as possible. The Dunton allocation will clearly only have an impact on the local area - Laindon, Basildon.

The Promoters of DHGV are not persuaded of either the need for or the suitability of DHGV as a suitable location for a large concentration of Gypsy and Traveller pitches, particularly in view of the fact that the sequential test has identified other more suitable sites to meet the need.
See additional documents and reference under Specialist Accommodation Needs.

As the master plan for the redevelopment of the West Horndon Industrial Estate has developed, the provision of Gypsy and Travellers Sites has never formed part of the discussion. Both residents and the Parish Council have already expressed their profound concern. Hermes is worried that this proposal may have a substantially negative effect on the valuable working relations that have been built with the local community over the years. Hermes are also concerned about the impact of this proposal on the viability of the whole redevelopment plan for the industrial estate. The proposal has seemingly come out of thin air, with no discussion at all. This is contrary to the advice set out in the Government's "Planning policy for traveller sites" (August 2015).

I note that the objections raised in the original application for Change of Use of Land in the Metropolitan Green Belt remain unchanged (application ref 11/00683/FUL). I also draw attention to the fact that although the Planning Inspector's report (as referred to in APP/H1515/A/12/2173169) made a recommendation for the granting of temporary planning permission for a period of 3 years (subject to conditions), it also clearly states that "very special circumstances do not exist and a permanent permission is not justified" and would be "unacceptable" - a view upheld by the Secretary of State. These objections centred on inappropriate development in the Green Belt, impacting on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the markedly rural area; not constituting a sustainable form of development; and the effect on Curtis Mill Green SSSI. It is understood that subsequent revised Planning Policy (based on the consultation response of August 2015) was designed to strengthen Green Belt protection. Also, the intentional and apparent existing breach of planning control on the site should be a material consideration in granting permanent planning permission or 'regularisation'. Furthermore it is noted that several conditions of the temporary planning permission have been violated, including: 1. Frequent and improper burning of waste materials on the site - leading to potentially prejudicial health effects on the immediate neighbours; 2. Erection of additional structures within the site boundary; 3. Commercial activities (vehicle repair) - leading to substantial deleterious effects on the condition of the track providing access to the site; 4. Unauthorised clearing of land, adjacent to the SSSI and outside of the agreed boundary of the site. In summary, I object to the proposed regularisation of the site in question as it appears to be in contradiction of stated government policy, as well as the impact on the character and appearance of the locality (adjacent to, and with access via, the SSSI) and adverse effect on the residential amenity of the neighbours (improper disposal of waste by open fire, prejudicial health effects, deteriorating track condition, permanent visual impact of the development). However, in the event that the site is approved for regularisation, I would expect the original conditions as stated in the Planning Inspector's report to be met (e.g. with regard to formal drainage facilities) and that there is adequate enforcement of permitted activities on the site, in the interests of maintaining good community relations.

We strongly object to the authorisation of Hunters Green, Albyns Lane becoming an authorised 'Travellers' pitch based on the following considerations:

- The proposed site is located in an extremely hard to sell property area due to its secluded nature and access to properties via dirt track. (not an official road). Establishing an official "travellers" site will significantly effect property value and may make future sale near impossible.

- Regular weekly burning of toxic waste products causing considerable air pollution that blows towards our property which prevents us from being able to open windows or be outside.

- The site is operating an un-authorised workshop with multiple large motor vehicles travelling regularly up and down a rough track lane that is used to access all properties. This has caused an increase in damage to the track and the surrounding fragile SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) protected grasses that surround the track. (Track widening was one of the points highlighted by SSSI officer in their report).

- Un-authorised clearing of "Common land" outside of site including trees, bushes and grasses by heavy digger.

- The site allows free roam of a dangerous horse that has attacked local dog walker's dogs.

- Erection of signage with highly offence and rude inappropriate language.

- Dirt bikes from site residents driving on SSSI land destroying the protected grassland.

- The site is located in a rather unique area containing SSSI sites and ancient forestry. This area is in desperate need of protection.

We strongly object to the authorisation of Hunters Green, Albyns Lane becoming an authorised 'Travellers' pitch based on the following considerations:

- The proposed site is located in an extremely hard to sell property area due to its secluded nature and access to properties via dirt track. (not an official road). Establishing an official "travellers" site will significantly effect property value and may make future sale near impossible.

- Regular weekly burning of toxic waste products causing considerable air pollution that blows towards our property which prevents us from being able to open windows or be outside.

- The site is operating an un-authorised workshop with multiple large motor vehicles travelling regularly up and down a rough track lane that is used to access all properties. This has caused an increase in damage to the track and the surrounding fragile SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) protected grasses that surround the track. (Track widening was one of the points highlighted by SSSI officer in their report).

- Un-authorised clearing of "Common land" outside of site including trees, bushes and grasses by heavy digger.

- The site allows free roam of a dangerous horse that has attacked local dog walker's dogs.

- Erection of signage with highly offence and rude inappropriate language.

- Dirt bikes from site residents driving on SSSI land destroying the protected grassland.

- The site is located in a rather unique area containing SSSI sites and ancient forestry. This area is in desperate need of protection.

We strongly object to the authorisation of Hunters Green, Albyns Lane becoming an authorised 'Travellers' pitch based on the following considerations:

- The proposed site is located in an extremely hard to sell property area due to its secluded nature and access to properties via dirt track. (not an official road). Establishing an official "travellers" site will significantly effect property value and may make future sale near impossible.

- Regular weekly burning of toxic waste products causing considerable air pollution that blows towards our property which prevents us from being able to open windows or be outside.

- The site is operating an un-authorised workshop with multiple large motor vehicles travelling regularly up and down a rough track lane that is used to access all properties. This has caused an increase in damage to the track and the surrounding fragile SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest) protected grasses that surround the track. (Track widening was one of the points highlighted by SSSI officer in their report).

- Un-authorised clearing of "Common land" outside of site including trees, bushes and grasses by heavy digger.

- The site allows free roam of a dangerous horse that has attacked local dog walker's dogs.

- Erection of signage with highly offence and rude inappropriate language.

- Dirt bikes from site residents driving on SSSI land destroying the protected grassland.

- The site is located in a rather unique area containing SSSI sites and ancient forestry. This area is in desperate need of protection.

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

I wish to record my objection to the development of Dunton Hills Garden Village due to its size and impact on the area.

Essex is already full and the infrastructure cannot handle the development proposed.

There are already plans for approximately 90,000 homes in the nearby area and the area is already struggling to cope with the current population.

The site is on green belt land and should be protected - wildlife and ecosystems are being destroyed and restricted all over the county.

The A127 struggles with the current traffic load. It is not a trunk road and is not eligible for government funding so no meaningful improvements will be made to improve the traffic flow. Over the last two weeks local papers have reported ideas for a congestion charge and report pollution issues due to the current traffic load.

Basildon hospital is currently under staffed and underfunded, services are struggling and again local press constantly report serious incidents and mistakes due to over work. Parking is impossible with the current patients. Doctors surgeries have closed in many parts of Essex and Orsett hospital is set to close. New hospitals and resources will take forever and should be in place ready for population expansion, not put in after the event.

Development on the proposed scale will primarily affect other councils and will add further pressures on them.

Train services are currently inadequate and cannot cope with additional passengers. They will also get extra pressure from extra passengers up the line.

The figures for population expansion are to high and have been recently evaluated to be 15% lower that expected, therefore numbers of houses should be reduced by the same amount.

Travellers - Essex is currently blighted by travellers taking advantage and government laws need to be updated to keep them under control. We already have large traveller sites and they are now creating illegal ones more and more often. Brentwood need to put sufficient spaces in, in line with targets but numbers need to be reduced and controlled. Travellers should abide by common law and not be allowed to flaunt it.

Policing, ambulance and fire services are under resourced as it is, they cannot handle the continual increase in population without lives being put in danger.

Flooding is already a concern for the area but more roads drives gardens and roofs will only add to the problem.


ESSEX IS ALREADY FULL AND FURTHER DEVELOPMENT WILL PUT LIVES AT RISK.

With reference to page 33 point 73

As a neighbour directly effected by Hunters Green , Curtis mill green, Albyns lane Navestock, I am objecting against the possible regularisation of above mentioned sight as a traveller pitch , things that need to be considered are stated as follows,

1. This is a green belt area
2 Its on the edge of an sssi area
3. The current occupier has a commercial vehicle business operating from the sight resulting in a largely increased usage of the unmade track leading to it.
4. Extra caravans or extension of existing dwelling will inevitability happen to accommodate the steadily growing already large traveller family .
5. The extra use of the track due to family acquiring their own vehicles as they come of age.
6. The impact on the environment due to regular fires on the sight.
7. Impact on the environment due to unauthorised clearance of surrounding woodland.
8. The impact on the environment due to persistent use of large quad bikes in and around the sight (including the sssi area) .
9. Use of the already insufficient domestic waist bins sighted at the entrance to Curtis mill green.
10. Value decrease of surrounding properties.

With reference to page 33 point 73

As a neighbour directly effected by Hunters Green , Curtis mill green, Albyns lane Navestock, I am objecting against the possible regularisation of above mentioned sight as a traveller pitch , things that need to be considered are stated as follows,

1. This is a green belt area
2 Its on the edge of an sssi area
3. The current occupier has a commercial vehicle business operating from the sight resulting in a largely increased usage of the unmade track leading to it.
4. Extra caravans or extension of existing dwelling will inevitability happen to accommodate the steadily growing already large traveller family .
5. The extra use of the track due to family acquiring their own vehicles as they come of age.
6. The impact on the environment due to regular fires on the sight.
7. Impact on the environment due to unauthorised clearance of surrounding woodland.
8. The impact on the environment due to persistent use of large quad bikes in and around the sight (including the sssi area) .
9. Use of the already insufficient domestic waist bins sighted at the entrance to Curtis mill green.
10. Value decrease of surrounding properties.

Background
By way of background, RPS submitted representations to the draft Brentwood Local Plan Regulation 18 consultation in March 2016 (referred to 'March 2016 Representations'), which set out the policy context regarding travelling showpeople's plots and sites (also referred to as a showmen's yard). Our representations sought the allocation of land at the former Chequers Public House on Chequers Road for use as a showmen's yard/travelling showpeople's site. Those representations set out a number of objections to the draft Local Plan which then excluded provision for showpeople's provision and explained why the site should be appropriate for designation as a Travelling Showpeople's Site. Those representations remain relevant here (we will explain below) but are not specifically repeated for brevity reasons. It is requested that the Council apply those representations to this consultation, in conjunction with further representations below.

It is noted here that the only relevant change to those representations would relate to a planning permission which was granted for the demolition of the public house and its replacement with a single dwelling (Ref: 16/00344/FUL), which were under consideration at the time when those representations were made. The proposals for a showmen's yard on the property associated with that application were withdrawn before determination.

In more recent developments, our client has recently submitted an application for a Lawful Development Certificate (Section 191 application) for an existing use of the land for storage purposes (Class B8). This application is currently being considered by the Council under reference: 18/00323/S191. It relates to a significant portion of the land towards the rear of the former public house, which was assessed in our March 2016 Representations as being a suitable location for travelling showpeople's plots and yard.


Representations
Paragraphs 46-49
RPS objects to the references in Paragraphs 46-49 on the basis that it makes no reference to a provision of showpeople's plots in accordance with Government guidance (Planning Policy for Travellers), for which RPS considers there is a need. Reference is made to the Brentwood Gypsies and Travellers Accommodation Assessment (GTAA) (October 2017), which identified that there were no travelling showpeople living or located within Brentwood at the present time and so there was no current or future need for additional plots. However, this does not necessarily reflect the situation regarding neighbouring authorities, where a shortfall in provision exists (in this case Thurrock District) and where these authorities may not be able to accommodate this need within their own administrative area due to a variety of factors. In this case Brentwood Council would have an obligation to assess whether it could assist Thurrock District in identifying suitable alternative provision for showmen's yards through the Duty to Co-operate (NPPF Paragraphs 178 and 179). Indeed, we have written extensively about this in our original March 2016 Representations, and this does not appear to be reflected in this current draft Local Plan document or in the background GTAA. It also does not reflect the fact that an application for a showmen's yard was submitted in 2016, which although no decision was taken, did provide substantial information regarding the need for plots in Brentwood and the suitability of the site for such purposes. We therefore object to this paragraph as it is unsound based on the evidence we have already put forward.

Paragraphs 73-74
RPS objects to Paragraphs 73 and 74 and its table as it provides no plots for travelling showpeople. The Council should be allocating provision for travelling showpeople in Brentwood to accommodate the need arising in neighbouring Thurrock, which cannot be accommodated within Thurrock, given a suitable site exists (our client's site at Chequers Road). We assessed in detail why it is suitable site for a Showpeople's Yard in our March 2016 Representations, and a current application to confirm the site's existing use as Class B8 (storage) is currently being considered by the Council, which would confirm that site's suitability for one of three key elements of a showpeople's site (these being storage, maintenance and residential).

In conclusion, our objection regarding the draft Local Plan made in March 2016 remains the same, in that we consider that the Local Plan would be 'unsound' without the provision of plots to accommodate need, which relates to a Duty to Co-operate with a neighbouring authority, particularly where a suitable site (at Chequers Road) is available.

We therefore request that the land at Chequers Road is allocated for such purpose to provide plots in accordance with the Government's guidance on the matter.

Please don't hesitate to contact me to discuss any matters raised in this letter.

See attached.

Object strongly to the proposals to regularise the area now known as Hunters Green, Coxtie Mill Green Navestock. I have lived here for 50 years enjoying the SSSI and have witnesses the area which used to be two allotments and a garden shed be turned into a mobile home site and associated impacts in area. Commercial use of the area has led to destruction of the access track and common land has been encroached and misused. The planning refusal should be enforced.

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I object fully to the above mentioned plans which will detrimentally impact Billericay and the surrounding areas. My objection is on the following basis:

- The local infrastructure and services are already unable to cope with current population demands especially local roads, access roads in and out of Billericay, schools, hospital and doctor availability, train services in particular

- Welcoming additional travellers by providing specific sites is nonsensical. It shows a lack of respect for current residents. It is well known that when travellers are in an area, residents feel a detrimental impact through damage, violence, crime, general demeanour on local areas. The population of travellers should be constrained and reduced and not encouraged - especially in an area which has a thriving youthful population in which parents are tirelessly striving to bring their children up with good manners and as valuable citizens. Travellers do not provide the same back to communities, introduce lack of security to areas, make current residents feel scared and intimidated - this is not fair. Our council rates are astronomically high to live in a nice area - these rates are not in line with having a traveller community within the area and will be fraudulent if travellers are formally introduced to the local area. The government should expend effort on jailing / removing the travellers rather than encouraging.

- The local area and it's conservation / green belt areas are what makes Billericay a great place to live- removing these will increase pressure on the environment, fundamentally impact the essence of Billericay and remove access and education opportunities for our children - it will also fundamentally impact the local nature, habitats - our world will not survive if our eco-system is not sustained.

We look forward to your due consideration, review and subsequent dismissal of the plans.

Yours faithfully,

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I object fully to the above mentioned plans which will detrimentally impact Billericay and the surrounding areas. My objection is on the following basis:

- The local infrastructure and services are already unable to cope with current population demands especially local roads, access roads in and out of Billericay, schools, hospital and doctor availability, train services in particular

- Welcoming additional travellers by providing specific sites is nonsensical. It shows a lack of respect for current residents. It is well known that when travellers are in an area, residents feel a detrimental impact through damage, violence, crime, general demeanour on local areas. The population of travellers should be constrained and reduced and not encouraged - especially in an area which has a thriving youthful population in which parents are tirelessly striving to bring their children up with good manners and as valuable citizens. Travellers do not provide the same back to communities, introduce lack of security to areas, make current residents feel scared and intimidated - this is not fair. Our council rates are astronomically high to live in a nice area - these rates are not in line with having a traveller community within the area and will be fraudulent if travellers are formally introduced to the local area. The government should expend effort on jailing / removing the travellers rather than encouraging.

- The local area and it's conservation / green belt areas are what makes Billericay a great place to live- removing these will increase pressure on the environment, fundamentally impact the essence of Billericay and remove access and education opportunities for our children - it will also fundamentally impact the local nature, habitats - our world will not survive if our eco-system is not sustained.

We look forward to your due consideration, review and subsequent dismissal of the plans.

Yours faithfully,

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I object fully to the above mentioned plans which will detrimentally impact Billericay and the surrounding areas. My objection is on the following basis:

- The local infrastructure and services are already unable to cope with current population demands especially local roads, access roads in and out of Billericay, schools, hospital and doctor availability, train services in particular

- Welcoming additional travellers by providing specific sites is nonsensical. It shows a lack of respect for current residents. It is well known that when travellers are in an area, residents feel a detrimental impact through damage, violence, crime, general demeanour on local areas. The population of travellers should be constrained and reduced and not encouraged - especially in an area which has a thriving youthful population in which parents are tirelessly striving to bring their children up with good manners and as valuable citizens. Travellers do not provide the same back to communities, introduce lack of security to areas, make current residents feel scared and intimidated - this is not fair. Our council rates are astronomically high to live in a nice area - these rates are not in line with having a traveller community within the area and will be fraudulent if travellers are formally introduced to the local area. The government should expend effort on jailing / removing the travellers rather than encouraging.

- The local area and it's conservation / green belt areas are what makes Billericay a great place to live- removing these will increase pressure on the environment, fundamentally impact the essence of Billericay and remove access and education opportunities for our children - it will also fundamentally impact the local nature, habitats - our world will not survive if our eco-system is not sustained.

We look forward to your due consideration, review and subsequent dismissal of the plans.

Yours faithfully,

Dear Sir, I think it most inappropriate to allocate traveller sites in West Horndon. Many people feel threatened and intimidated by travellers and if the only pub in West Horndon is frequented by the travellers it could become a no go area to the rest of the villagers. The pub is a social centre of the village and is therefore very important to the residents. A change could mean the pub having to close, an outcome which nobody wants. Please think long and hard before making decisions that may have serious lasting effects.
kind regards, William Isaacs.

Flood Risk. This development would surely increase the flood risk in an area that is already classified as high risk. How would this be mitigated? The exiting drainage system in West Horndon is not great, with surface water accumulating at times of heavy rainfall. What research has been done to review increased flood risk as a result of this development? Transport. The surrounding road network will not be able to cope with this level of development leading to congestion and increased pollution. How will traffic flows through West Horndon be manged, as the through roads were not designed to accommodate heavy traffic, as could be expected due to this proposal. How will the local and surrounding road network be changed to accommodate the new development, and when will this be consulted upon? The station is already at capacity during rush hour, with any delays meaning that trains are crowded to the point of not being able to board on occasion. The car park at the station is regularly full even though more parking spaces were recently introduced. The platforms at the station are not large. How will the station cope with increased footfall and still be workable? Environment. There will be negative impact due to noise, disruption, increased omissions and loss of open space. How will this be mitigated and what compensating factors will there be? How will quality of life for residents of the village be preserved - and how will the commitment to balance development needs with village character be achieved? Equalities Impact Assessment: Can the equalities impact assessment be published? How will the negative impact in terms of socio-economic disadvantage be mitigated? How is it equitable that West Horndon is absorbing the bulk of the development - quality of life for residents will be negatively impacted. Economic Development. The plan states: The exact range and type of employment development at Dunton Hills is still subject to detailed site masterplanning, but will need to be compatible with residential uses and of a human scale which is appropriate to a new garden village. How can the development be put forward for approval without this vital analysis; if the employment and economic development opportunities are not conversant with this large development, then social depravation will prevail.
I would like to understand why over 50% of the Gypsy and Traveller sites have been allocated to the village of West Horndon. How is this equitable distribution, whereby the geographical area compared to the borough as a whole is considerably less than 50%?
The village is already set to undergo a massive transformation, so what is the justification for placing these sites alongside the residential dwellings, is this in anyone's best interests?
How will security and community safety be assured?
Will council tax for residents be reduced as a result, is there any other compensation being offered?
Where is the impact assessment to consider socio and demographic factors pertaining to the village as a result of this proposal?

I am objecting to the idea of allocating traveller sites in the above stated locations. My objection is based upon the fact that travellers race almost every Sunday along the A127. They meet at the halfway house and then block the A127 with vehicles allowing the race to take place. I am aware of this as I have been caught out by visiting the starbucks on a Sunday morning at the halfway house and 50-100 travellers have turned up to race. I am also aware of this issue as I am a Special Constable for the Essex police and I have seen numerous calls from the public complaining about this situation.
I cannot see that placing travellers in a location right next to the A127 will do anything other than make this situation worse.
The corridor of the A127 from the M25 junction to Southend is already a heavily congested stretch of road and the congestion has already increased due to the completion of the Bellway houses built at the Dunton site.
To keep adding houses to an area, which is over populated, heavily congested with vehicles and already faces public order issues with travellers is frankly madness.

Section 12 - Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) "evidence base is increasing including masterplan work" and
Section 64 e - "Developing a comprehensive masterplan for the new garden village at Dunton Hills, to engrain the core garden village design principles"
* how can an objective view be made on site selection before this masterplan detail is presented and made available to the public?

Section 26 - "Commited to growth . . . but in a way that maintains and enhances unique local character"
* wheras DHGV will completely destroy the unique local character of Dunton Village which is right on its border.

Section 28 - Strategic Objectives - S04 "A new well connected community at Dunton Hills"
* Please see fuller comments below - but how can it be well connected when it isolated from the rest of Brentwood, isolated from the railway and bound by already heavily congested roads

Figure 9 - page 26/27 - Proposed Housing Led Allocations
* DHGV is not included in the Green Belt total, effectively masking the extent of Green Belt land being developed
* Out of 381.25 Hectares of land allocated, 342.65 (257 + 85.65) is green belt. That's a staggering 89.8% Green belt land, which does not deliver a sustainable, ecological allocation plan.

Section 67 - Total dwellings
* Figure 9 shows a total allocated dwelling number of 6,154 houses. DHGV makes up 40% of this total. However, section 67 states this figure could increase to 9080 with accelerated growth within DHGV to deliver 3500 dwellings.
* This will add a huge burden to the surrounding infrastructure. With an estimated 9000 residents (section 105), a large level of investment will need to be made regarding roads, health, schools, shopping and work provisions. A sticking plaster approach will just not work given that many of these areas are already stretched to within breaking point.
* It just seems that not enough effort has been put into dispersing these houses across the borough. It is just lazy of the council to allocate it 1) on green belt land and 2) land from a single land owner - just to make the allocation process easier

Figure 13 - page 33 - Provision of traveller sites
* Travellers do not contribute funding in the same way that the general public do through council tax, national insurance etc. and therefore it does not seem appropriate to creating infrastructure specifically for one minority group
* That said, if traveller provisions do need to be created, surely it is better for all concerned to allocate them away from large communities and therefore the 30 allocations at DHGV would seem wholly inappropriate in that regard

Figure 22 - page 57 - New Employment Site Allocations
* The largest proportion of new employment areas are extensions onto green belt land - again along the A127 corridor, further burdening the already gridlocked roadways. The A127 is already experiencing pollution levels above EU allowable levels.
* The erosion of Greenbelt along the A127 means that there is almost no division from the urban sprawl of London and Brentwood / Basildon meaning that there will no longer be any green belt