I note that the committee has worked hard to identify potential development sites for housing inter alia.
My concerns lie within your "site constraint" paragraphs. While you identify very serious constraints such as parking, wildlife and woodland sites, conservation areas, and surface water flood risk, the implication is that you will, nevertheless, need to use these sites in order to meet your targets.
There is barely sufficient convenient parking space at present to attract people into the town centre rather than driving to out of town shopping sites, so, attractive as the current parking sites are for potential housing development, you need to retain town centre parking areas.
As for building on the station parking area, with its recognised danger of causing railway line flooding, unless the solution is extensive subterranean parking with subway access to the station, and a built-in drainage reservoir, I fail to see how Brentwood's potential and existing rail travellers are going to find Brentwood an attractive proposition.
I will also mention that your primary school predictions are already out of date as it has been acknowledged that Holly trees primary school cannot grow and that Warley primary school will need to grow to 420 pupils to account for the shortfall. I also understood that there was a need to build another primary school within the town in order to accommodate the growing and potential pupil numbers but I can find no site allocation for such a school with its requisite recreation grounds and fields.
Finally, I acknowledge the commitment to providing powering stations for the electric cars of the future. I do hope the facilities will predate the necessary influx of theses eco cars!

Dear Sir / Madam,

I popped into one of the drop in sessions in a dilapidated shop near the Baytree Centre and I had a good chat with one of your staff.

It was quite informal but I still have quite a lot of questions that have not been addressed despite my many queries in my 20 years of living in Brentwood as follows:

Why is there not 2 hours parking in Brentwood like Shenfield residents enjoy?

why are there no fast trains from Brentwood station despite it being the may residential area in the borough?

why no lift to platform 4 at Brentwood station?

why no foitpath to weald and throndon country parks?

why £5 to park in the above 2 parks?

why no benchmarking on parking charges compared to nearby towns like Upminster, Harold Hill, Hornchurch, Romford, Billericay, Basiodon, Grays, Epping, Lakeside for a start. For example Basildon and Romford have free parking on a Sunday so why doesn't Brentwood?

Why do you still charge to park in the evening when most towns nearby don't?

Why are you building houses on the car park in William Hunter Way, the car park is always full?

why are you building on Brentwood station car park, this will lose spaces and discourage use of the train station?

why is a green belt side at Honeypot Lane being built on? When the road is narrow and there is no bus route or doctor's surgery for these 250 new houses?

Why can't we have more Sunday bus routes in the district? There is no way of getting to Basildon, Lakeside or Southend and Chelmsford bus is only every 2 hours, Bishops Hall Estate every 2 hours and Hutton Circular every 2 hours, the only decent bus is the 498 to Romford still only every 30 minutes though!

Why can't Brentwoid folk use oyster cards on all the buses like you can on the train?

why is there a 4 zone difference between Brentwood and Harold Wood? It is only 3 miles and not worth a £1,000 a year for such a short journey, equally why is the fare from Brentwood to Shenfiekd for 1.5 miles £600 a year and to Harold Wood for 4.5 miles £1,600 a year, why do you allow TfL and the DfT to milk Brentwood residents to subsidise London people?

why don't the new crossrail trains have softer seats and loos on them?

why are there hardly any buses to get to Shenfield to access the 14 trains per hour? All the buses go to Brentwood station where there is only 6 an hour which are all slow and don't even go beyond Shenfield, annoyingly? !?!

why are 20 mph speed limits not enforced on residential roads?

why is there no parking enforcement on law breakers who park on double yellow lines after 6pm or all day Sunday, yet you choose to send out peaked cap people to put tickets on cars in the town centre car park, double standard or what?

i cannot access my garage due to inconsiderate oiks in the flats behing my house obstructing my garage, and the peaked cap gestapo say they are unable to do anything why?

Why no buses on the weald road to access weald country park and old macdonalds farm, and why no hail and ride bus between ongar road and weald road for non drivers and disabled?

why has the council done nothing to stop the re routing of 37 bus and cutting of other routes i.e, to Harlow, Lakeside, Stanstead Airport and Epping?

That is all folks!

Many thanks

Development of car parks:

Whist development of car parks would supply land to develop, no strategy for future car parking appears to have been detailed. Without adequate parking facilities, residents will access retail outlets away from Brentwood and this will be to the detriment of the town which will further increase the number of charity shops and facilities for eating and drinking. To ensure that Brentwood remains a pleasant place to live will require a mix of establishments in the High Street and its environs.

Infrastructure:
Detailed planning needs to be given to provide sufficient primary and secondary school places for local children. The proposals for an additional190 school places seems inadequate for the additional number of dwellings proposed in the locality.
The majority of this increase will impact the number of places in Hogarth School which will result in increased traffic along Priests Lane which is already a busy and dangerous road.

Development of 95 homes off Priests Lane
We object to the addition of more housing on land accessed via Priests Lane which will further increase the volume of traffic using this road. There is already a high volume of traffic on this residential "Lane" - sections of which are so narrow that there is no white line down the centre of the road.
Detailed planning needs to be given to provide sufficient GP Surgeries and Health Care facilities to cater for the needs of the increasing local population. The current situation with regard to obtaining GP appointments is already of great concern and adding to the size of the population without addressing this sufficiently will put a demand on facilities that cannot be met and will be to the detriment of the existing residents.

It is suggested that additional GP facilities be constructed on the former site of the NHS Blood Bank in Crescent Drive entailing only a small reduction on the number of dwellings proposed to be built on that site.
In recent years the pleasant living conditions in the Brentwood area have been seen to be eroded quite markedly. Future development needs to be most carefully achieved in order to limit the damage to the quality of life for the existing and future residents.
The relaxation of the planning rules has allowed some disproportionate development and has resulted in an environment that is continually being spoilt by some building works (e.g., the grass verges), much of which building work is undertaken in a messy or untimely way. This results in continuing nuisance to other surrounding residents with little respite between one development ending and the commencement of another and this is before your LDP gets under way.
It is also of concern that there are now precedents for houses to be demolished in residential roads and their being replaced by the building of small blocks of flats. Whilst this may house more people, the impact on neighbouring properties is unacceptable. Seemingly, this could take place in any residential road where considered profitable by a developer. Little consideration, if any, would appear to be given to the surrounding residents.

I respond to the Local Development Plan Consultation. I have looked at the proposed development areas that are set out in the Plan. The plan envisages significant additional housing in the area. No mention seems to be made as to the type of housing proposed. I have to say that, in my view, what is required is affordable rental homes and that would be best achieved in the form of Council House developments. I would urge the Council to consider doing this particularly in the larger areas, scubas east of Shenfield and in the sites around the A127. But coming to the plan itself, where I feel that it falls short is that it does not contain any infrastructure planning to support the increase in population that the developments will bring. Most of the developments are 'out of town' which will bring significantly increased traffic and there is nothing that I can see to improve the roads and to remove bottlenecks. The roads are already overloaded. Furthermore, there is nothing that I can see planned to create additional parking both for commuters and shoppers. As it is, existing car parks are already full. What is worse is that your plan actually proposes to use existing car parks for housing, particularly in Brentwood where these car parks are, in my experience, fully utilised. Until such time as replacement and increased parking has been dealt with I would urge the Council not to develop the area further. Of course, increasing housing will not only change the character of the area but will bring consequential air and noise pollution. Crossrail will inevitably bring such of that and I would urge the Council to quantify the impact of Crossrail first before embarking on such an ambitious housing project. And finally, I would urge the Council to ensure that most of the housing development that does go ahead is for truly affordable housing which, in my opinion, has to be Council rental property. We need to try and bring a younger population into the area and this can only be done if the properties are both affordable and rental ones.

Whilst building on some brown field sites could be acceptable, building to the proposed volume inside the green belt area is not the instant answer to the housing shortage. People who live in these areas also require space to live in and enjoy, the wildlife requires areas of habitat and the council have quite overlooked the required infra structure needed to support these new communities. It is already impossible to obtain doctor's appointments in the Brentwood surgeries, the district hospital barely copes and our public transport is nonexistent. Many areas are still not supported by mains sewerage. Brentwood town centre struggles now with parking but what are we supposed to do whilst all our car parks are being built upon? The enlargement of the Sainsbury's car park is a complete eye sore and the multi story car park is dark and depressing and both are completely not in keeping with the surrounding areas. Years have been spent protecting our green belt only now to find out everybody has been given a free hand to develop where and what they want. This cannot be a fair way of implementing the new LDP especially in the small surrounding villages. Many residents are still unaware of the magnitude of your LDP and the change it will mean for the surrounding areas and town centre

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

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

See attached.

Brownfield site allocations: 311 Eagle & Child: This pub occupies a large site but in itself is not an attractive pub. There is another historic one nearby and too numerous food and alcohol outlets in the Shenfield Broadway area. 140 Chatham/Crown Street, 039 Westbury Road, 102 Hunter Avenue and 001 Brentwood Station car Parks: With an increased population envisaged and the demand for parking the redevelopment of these sites and elsewhere must be planned with these factors given priority. Greenfield land within Settlement Boundaries: 044 and 178 land at Priests lane. Development of this land is unavoidable if housing targets are to be met. 178 must take into account all the possible needs of Endeavour and Hogarth Schools. 044 Planned exit and a one through Bishop Walk are essential to spread the traffic load. Communication with St. Andrews Place must be avoided due to its bad sightline at its junction with Priests lane. A12 Corridor - urban Extensions: 022 Honeypot Lane. Excessive dense development to the boundary with the A12 should be avoided. the watercourse could be an attractive advantage to an attractive design. 263 east of Chelmsford Road. This is acceptable as it does not visibly affect views of Shenield housing, including from A1023. However it is essential that the BP garage with food outlet is included in the planning as currently traffic queing back onto the A1023 is a major road safety danger. 276, 034, 235 and 087 Officer's Meadow Area. Redevelopment of this area must be avoided since it forms an open "lung" in Shenfield which otherwise would become part of a brentwood/Shenfield conurbation as well as overloading the facilities in Shenfield. With good drainage a park and playing fields, which Shenfield lacks on any scale, should be considered. part of 034 could be joined with 263 satisfactorily. 037 is only a possibility for housing if this would not prejudice any future plans of Shenfield High School. 158 North of A1023 North of Shenfield. Redevelopment here is unsatisfactory for the same reasons as 276/235 above, again avoiding an overall Brentwood/Shenfield conurbation and housing up to the A1023 is undesirable as for 022 above. Dunton Hills garden Village. 200 This is essential to take main volume of the housing required. It must be well planned, with its own infrastructure and to help other area's local facilities being overwhelmed. General Comment. The above represents my comments on individual sites as a 70 year plus lifetime local residents. For those not mentioned I accept the site preference or for the larger Village sites I do not have enough local knowledge to comment. The sites in Ingatestone Village Service centre do not seem unreasonable.