far too congested already.

Risk of flooding is a major concern when considering to support this site. impact of traffic for the development years of 10-15 also has to be addressed.

This is 1 of 4 car parks in Brentwood that we are due to lose under the plan.
This will have an adverse effect on local businesses that rely on footfall from customers who park locally.
Without the customers many shops may be forced to close, affecting the whole town.

if you build on too many car parks where are people and commuters meant to park

Parking at the rail station is essential for many commuters. Please do not build on this precious facility.

Why take away an amenity that is already well used? You have said that users of the railway station need to be considered. OF COURSE THEY DO IT IS A CAR PARK FOR USERS OF THE STATION. This is a commuter area and you owe it to the commuters, who pay council tax to your coffers, giving them a place to park to earn the money to pay your council tax! I cannot believe you are really thinking of building on this car park. I can only assume that the people drawing up this plan don't use the station.

I cannot see that there is any alternative place for rail users to park in this vicinity. I do not see the purpose of the Elizabeth line/crossrails improvements. and the interminable"weekend bus replacements" that residents have suffered if when the project is complete residents are effectively precluded from accessing it or benefiting from it.

Closure of this car park would have a profound effect upon commuters who need to use their cars to get to the station to travel into London etc. Particularly as public transport buses are so few and far between. When the general public is being encouraged to travel by public transport, pushing commuters into travelling further to find a station where they can park make no sense whatsoever, plus the loss of revenue would obviously have an effect.

Car Parking space is limited, removing any will discourage more people from using the high street resulting in even more shop closures.

It would be ridiculous to loose any of the station car park, when we want to encourage more use of the train services, particularly with Crossrail starting.

Housing density of 93 per HA
where will the commuters using Brentwood station park with the arrival of the much trumpeted Crossrail and its benifits. This development will only exersapate the difficulties the residennts of the station area have with parking .

The parking at Brentwood station is often full. With the additional housing forecast for Brentwood it would be short sighted to remove the car parking facility unless a second storey is added (e.g. as per Shenfield station parking)

This is probably not a reasonable allocation unless and until it can be shown how the loss of much-needed car parking space will be dealt with. The Council has not satisfactorily dealt with the issue of car parking in the town.

As residents of Brentwood for over 40 years we understand the need to build new houses.To build on Brentwood station car park however does not appear to be the answer. BBC's VISION clearly states that Brentwood will continue to thrive and will provide a focus for retail, employment and exciting arts and cultural opportunities and strong rail links to London.How can residents live in Brentwood & travel to London or surrounding areas when there is no where to park at the station.Parking spaces will need to be provided for the 100 proposed new homes.Where will everyone else park!!!

Parking in Brentwood is in short supply and a this station car park should not be substituted for housing. Drivers wishing to use the station would be forced to use side roads which would create other issues.

To say that I'm alarmed about the loss of this essential car park is an understatement.

In view of the plan to build a very high number of new properties in Brentwood and surrounding areas, there needs to be additional car parking, not a reduction.

This proposal is outrageous !

Highways & Transportation Comment -
One of the constraints listed is the fact that car parking (station users) will need to be considered as part of redevelopment proposals. Reference should be made to other station users, such as pedestrians, cyclists and those who use public transport to access the site.
Development for this site needs to ensure that monies are secured to improve the sustainable transport facilities at the rail station including both layover bays and departure stands.

I have taken a look at the plan online and have the following comments. The development in priests Lane seems not In keeping with the area given the number of dwellings proposed The identification of pretty much every car park in Brentwood is ludicrous. Have you ever tried to park in Brentwood? In tandem with these increased abodes you need to tell us the plans for improved facilities - schools, doctors, parking, healthcare, community, shops - most importantly supermarkets - services eg Wi-fi, rubbish collection etc. Not to talk about that at same time makes it impossible to have anything but a negative view on the proposal. Please share any updates

I think that the proposal to build on all the local car parks is madness! Developers are being given permission to build residential sites without sufficient parking spaces for the residences, in turn creating crammed and dangerous parking on the roads. Sometimes I can't get out of our car due to so many cars parked in the road and I have witnessed emergency vehicles struggle to get down the road, yet you are planning to remove all the public car parks. So, were would you suggest visitors park? If these plans go ahead, local business will only suffer as it will deter people living on the out skirts of the town from coming in as they won't be able to park. The most shocking proposed site is the station Car Park, why would you choose to make people lives difficult when they just need to commute to work every day? I think these plans need a lot more thought and consideration for the people that already live in and around Brentwood. I am totally against these proposals.

The road infrastructure will not tolerate any additional traffic should the proposed volume of new homes in these areas proceed. Both Ongar Road and Doddinghurst road are hampered by long delays each commutable morning whilst in term time. For example, should the horse field at the rear of Viking way proceed, that could add another 350 cars to our local roads. This will cause chaos with Wilson corner not designed or prepared for these additional users. Delays and bottle necks will be inevitable, worst so than at present. Brentwood does not have the road infrastructure to accommodate new homes in these area. The allegation that homes may be built on some of the current town centre car park sites is an additional worry. William Hunter Way is a misery to navigate at certain times due to Sainburys, shoppers and through traffic (as people try to cut out a chunk of Ongar Road). More traffic would exacerbate grid locks. Parking at peak times in William Hunter Way proves that losing parking capacity is not an option especially in an effort to encourage shoppers. Huge investment would need to be applied to our road network if any proposals were to proceed. Do you have the funds for this? Will you be investing in local services to ensure the community is fully resourced? More schools? GP's? These site suggestions are not acceptable and will simply cause chaos and add further commute misery to residents.

On behalf of our client, Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd (Sainsbury's), we submit representation in respect of the consultation to the Draft Local Plan Preferred Site Allocations document.
Sainsbury's currently operate a supermarket at William Hunter Way, Brentwood. As a result they are keen to be involved in the Local Plan Process.

The Draft Local Plan 2016 set out an objectively assessed housing need for the Borough of 362 dwellings per annum between 2013-2033 (equating to a total of 7,240 dwellings in total). Revised studies undertaken conclude an increase in objectively assessed need to 380 dwellings per annum (or 7,600 dwellings across the plan period). This is an additional 360 dwellings in total.

To achieve this, the Council are proposing the redevelopment of a number of car parks within and close to Brentwood Town Centre: William Hunter Way (379 spaces); Brentwood Railway Station (414 spaces); Westbury Road (97 spaces); and Chatham Way / Crown Street (122 spaces). It is not clear what level of town centre parking will be retained on these sites.

The loss of town centre car parking spaces could undermine the health of the town centre. Sainsbury's want to ensure that adequate car parking is retained within the town centre to ensure the town centre remains attractive. The document should set out clearly how much available car parking will be provided as part of the redevelopment of these sites.

We trust that these representations will be taken into account in the next iteration of the document. If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact me.

(William Hunter Way): Very disappointed that plans to redevelop shopping area / cinema. Scaled down to make way for residential development. There is a major lack of parking already and the retail / entertainment opportunities failing. Too many restaurants being allowed to open in high street at expense of retail leading to mass exodus to Romford or lakeside to shop and / or cinema Need to attract locals to use local. Amenities but lack of parking and limited retail outlets fails us all. Putting more traffic out of town on roads. (Chatham Way / Crown Street): As per William Hunter Way - same objections as well as parking will become non existent / limited and this encourage locals to seek retail opportunities away from high street. Traffic congestion is already bad in these areas and reduction in public parking will mean town is not accessible or safe. A retail / entertainment complex with underneath parking and/or better affordable public transport is a must (bus fares are extortionate!!!). (Brentwood Railway Station): Where are commuters suppose to park and with the arrival of crossrail this seems ludicrous to consider building housing on the site. This again restricting usage and accessibility to station. Bus services to and from are irregular / infrequent / unaffordable and coverage limited and unreliable (other than 498 but only runs to Sainsburys). Thus locals again will travel out of Brentwood and outsiders will not travel into our borough due to inconvenient and lack of retail / entertainment.

Thank you for consulting Transport for London (TfL) on the Brentwood Borough Council, Draft Local Plan, Preferred Site Allocations document. The following comments represent the views of officers in TfL Commercial Development Planning Team (TfL CD) in its capacity as a significant landowner and are separate from any representations that may be made by TfL in its statutory role as the strategic transport authority for London.
TfL Commercial Development Property Development Team works to identify development opportunities throughout our landholdings. We work to unlock underutilised land through pursuing innovative solutions to enable development of our sites. We are committed to providing exemplary developments that will showcase the Mayors objectives of providing good growth. Within Brentwood TfL CD has identified a site within the borough with the potential for residential development which could make a significant contribution towards meeting borough and TfL housing targets.
Site Allocations
Brentwood railway station car park TfL CD strongly supports the draft allocation of the site for housing development. The site is a well contained underutilised site with excellent transport accessibility and should therefore be a focus for growth. TfL supports the suggested approach of producing a site specific development brief for the site and would wish to be involved in its preparation.
We note that the draft site allocation boundary does not include a section of car park towards the east. The attached plan represents the parcel of land within TfL's ownership for which we are exploring development feasibility, and which measures 1.39ha.
We note that the draft allocation includes the approximate capacity for 100 homes, which equates to an indicative net density of 104 dwellings per hectare. High level feasibility studies for this site indicate that a decked design could allow a greater density to be achieved on the site whilst still providing a compatible and neighbourly form of development. Taking into account the town centre location and prevailing form of development, we consider that the site could support a higher density form of development than that suggested.
The William Hunter Way car park proposed allocation includes the approximate capacity for up to 300 homes which equates to a net density of 245 dwellings per hectare. The background information sets out that viability analysis suggests that higher density residential development would be required to fund commercial and parking uses. If development at Brentwood railway station car park will need to re-provide existing commuter car parking, it is also highly likely that higher density residential development would be required to fund the additional infrastructure associated with parking uses.
As such we would suggest that the same logic with regards to density assumptions are applied to both William Hunter Way car park and Brentwood railway station car park. Given the above, the central and accessible location of the site, we consider that a 200-250 home figure would represent a more accurate representation of the sites likely indicative housing capacity.

Thank you for consulting Transport for London (TfL) on the Brentwood Borough Council, Draft Local Plan, Preferred Site Allocations document. The following comments represent the views of officers in TfL Commercial Development Planning Team (TfL CD) in its capacity as a significant landowner and are separate from any representations that may be made by TfL in its statutory role as the strategic transport authority for London.
TfL Commercial Development Property Development Team works to identify development opportunities throughout our landholdings. We work to unlock underutilised land through pursuing innovative solutions to enable development of our sites. We are committed to providing exemplary developments that will showcase the Mayors objectives of providing good growth. Within Brentwood TfL CD has identified a site within the borough with the potential for residential development which could make a significant contribution towards meeting borough and TfL housing targets.
Site Allocations
Brentwood railway station car park TfL CD strongly supports the draft allocation of the site for housing development. The site is a well contained underutilised site with excellent transport accessibility and should therefore be a focus for growth. TfL supports the suggested approach of producing a site specific development brief for the site and would wish to be involved in its preparation.
We note that the draft site allocation boundary does not include a section of car park towards the east. The attached plan represents the parcel of land within TfL's ownership for which we are exploring development feasibility, and which measures 1.39ha.
We note that the draft allocation includes the approximate capacity for 100 homes, which equates to an indicative net density of 104 dwellings per hectare. High level feasibility studies for this site indicate that a decked design could allow a greater density to be achieved on the site whilst still providing a compatible and neighbourly form of development. Taking into account the town centre location and prevailing form of development, we consider that the site could support a higher density form of development than that suggested.
The William Hunter Way car park proposed allocation includes the approximate capacity for up to 300 homes which equates to a net density of 245 dwellings per hectare. The background information sets out that viability analysis suggests that higher density residential development would be required to fund commercial and parking uses. If development at Brentwood railway station car park will need to re-provide existing commuter car parking, it is also highly likely that higher density residential development would be required to fund the additional infrastructure associated with parking uses.
As such we would suggest that the same logic with regards to density assumptions are applied to both William Hunter Way car park and Brentwood railway station car park. Given the above, the central and accessible location of the site, we consider that a 200-250 home figure would represent a more accurate representation of the sites likely indicative housing capacity.

Thank you for consulting Transport for London (TfL) on the Brentwood Borough Council, Draft Local Plan, Preferred Site Allocations document. The following comments represent the views of officers in TfL Commercial Development Planning Team (TfL CD) in its capacity as a significant landowner and are separate from any representations that may be made by TfL in its statutory role as the strategic transport authority for London.
TfL Commercial Development Property Development Team works to identify development opportunities throughout our landholdings. We work to unlock underutilised land through pursuing innovative solutions to enable development of our sites. We are committed to providing exemplary developments that will showcase the Mayors objectives of providing good growth. Within Brentwood TfL CD has identified a site within the borough with the potential for residential development which could make a significant contribution towards meeting borough and TfL housing targets.
Site Allocations
Brentwood railway station car park TfL CD strongly supports the draft allocation of the site for housing development. The site is a well contained underutilised site with excellent transport accessibility and should therefore be a focus for growth. TfL supports the suggested approach of producing a site specific development brief for the site and would wish to be involved in its preparation.
We note that the draft site allocation boundary does not include a section of car park towards the east. The attached plan represents the parcel of land within TfL's ownership for which we are exploring development feasibility, and which measures 1.39ha.
We note that the draft allocation includes the approximate capacity for 100 homes, which equates to an indicative net density of 104 dwellings per hectare. High level feasibility studies for this site indicate that a decked design could allow a greater density to be achieved on the site whilst still providing a compatible and neighbourly form of development. Taking into account the town centre location and prevailing form of development, we consider that the site could support a higher density form of development than that suggested.
The William Hunter Way car park proposed allocation includes the approximate capacity for up to 300 homes which equates to a net density of 245 dwellings per hectare. The background information sets out that viability analysis suggests that higher density residential development would be required to fund commercial and parking uses. If development at Brentwood railway station car park will need to re-provide existing commuter car parking, it is also highly likely that higher density residential development would be required to fund the additional infrastructure associated with parking uses.
As such we would suggest that the same logic with regards to density assumptions are applied to both William Hunter Way car park and Brentwood railway station car park. Given the above, the central and accessible location of the site, we consider that a 200-250 home figure would represent a more accurate representation of the sites likely indicative housing capacity.

I have just viewed the above Local plan and wish to raise some grave concerns and objections to some of the proposals.
These are:
1) The plan proposes in excess of 500 hundred homes in the Warley area, (Fords, Council Depot, Pastoral Way) As a resident of this area I can say with some authority that the roads a facilities in this area are under strain now, they would be overwhelmed and unable to cope with such an increase.
500 homes would have at least 1 car each, the expectation that people will use public transport is just rubbish, it doesn't happen in the real world.
As a result the traffic, pollution and noise pollution in the area will rise. Its gridlock currently in The Drive and Warley Hill in the morning and evenings, as it is in Chindits lane when the kids get driven to school.
The doctors surgery in Pastoral Way (Beechwood) never has any free appointments when you need one now and patients have to wait for days.
This is the situation currently, imagine what it will be like with 500 additional patients (that is presuming only 1 person lives in each dwelling which is unlikely to say the least).
2) There is a proposal to build on Brentwood Station car park!! Ludicrous!! !where do you think anyone commuting will park? In the surrounding streets? only to be joined by all the additional traffic from the 500 houses!! This proposal also needs a serious re think as well.
3) I notice you have proposal to build on nearly all the town centre car parks, bar Sainsbury's and the Multi-storey in Coptfield road. Where do you expect people to park when they go shopping? I think this will result in the death of the shopping centre. The shop keepers suffered when the High Street was re paved some years ago because people couldn't cross the road to get to them and wouldn't walk the 50 yards or so to where they could cross.
I believe you will see a demise and shoppers will go elsewhere to places like Lakeside and Bluewater where they can park with ease.
I would therefore like to register my very strong objections to these proposals.

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.

As a Brook Road homeowner for over 20 years, I strongly object to a number of the planning "options" submitted and have itemised above those that are most unacceptable to me.

Brentwood is regularly grid-locked, particularly during rush hour, and always at weekends because of our growing population, the town's popularity as a celebrity haunt and the close proximity to the M25, which is regularly closed with traffic being diverted through the High Street.

The small residential roads are often used as cut-throughs, and speed limits and general safety ignored by road users - Brook Road is a prime example being adjacent to London Road.

Regarding Honeypot Lane - the location is only accessible by existing residential areas with restricted arteries to the town (Weald Road including width restriction). Trying to turn right from Weald Road onto London Road is already a lengthy and dangerous turn.

To remove parking spaces when it is already difficult to park around the town is short-sighted.

To consider building most or all the required housing on one site (Honeypot Lane and Ford, Warley) will lead to even greater bottlenecks in one part of the town.

The charm of Brentwood is that, despite it being a busy town, within a few minutes (traffic permitting!), you can be driving past allotments, beehives (far end of Honeypot Lane) and the country park.

South Weald is a small hamlet, which does not have the infrastructure of roads or school places to cope with 200 homes being built a mile down the road.

Brentwood doesn't have the infrastructure either.

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.

GENERAL

1 When planning permission is granted there should be strict use it or loose it time constraints As with The Crown development Ingatestone WELL DONE

2 If we are so desperate for housing .Low density projects as Trueloves
Ingatestone would appear wasteful of much needed land NOT ONE OF YOUR BEST DECISIONS

3 Provision of electric car charging points should be a consideration

4 There should be proactive action on empty properties and land banking

SPECIFIC PROPOSALS

I find putting forward BRENTWOOD RAILWAY CAR PARK misguided and strongly
object It is a most important facility at present and surely if the town and
its environs are to expand to rail use will also expand

INGATESTONE The surgery is at its limit now . Redrose ? the owners of the GARDEN
CENTRE have undertaken to make ONEOFF contributions to schools and health care
The problem at the doctors is getting staff , both nurses and doctors . They are overwhelmed at present with any more pressure almost certain to result in
departures and not recruitment

002 - Brentwood Station and 023A + 023B - Doddinghurst Road: totally ludicrous planning to add more housing in an already overcrowded area with no thought for the already stretched infrastructure and poor roads in need of desperate repair.