Risk of flooding has to be considered and properly addressed.

sensible to use brownfield sites especially when it will provide 580 houses

Contained within the Brentwood local plan there are plans to transform large parts of the current West Horndon Industrial park into new homes. This will directly affect many small businesses and cause many potential job losses.
Pawle and Co Ltd is a family owned and operated business like many on the site. Pawle and Co was established back in 1992 and has gradually grown to the point we now employ 18 full time staff. The company specialises in sheet metal fabrication and production of related items including life saving defibrillator cabinets of which several thousand have now been produced and can be found around the UK. As a result of the type of machinery and processes used at the current factory it is not as easy and simple as just packing up and moving to a new site. Some of the challenges include moving large heavy specialist equipment and machines which would require a specialist moving company. A new site would also have to be found which was suitable both in terms of electrical connection for the machinery and suitable for the size and type of work we carry out. Many of the new sites around Essex do not allow for this type of manufacturing, nor do they have sufficient electrical supply, ventilation or lighting within the units. They seem to focus on logistics and light manufacture.
Pawle and Co has also built professional relationships with many other companies on the current industrial park and nearby. For example we work with some of the following businesses on the site; GK Engineering, Horndon Powder Coaters, SADS UK, RSC Engineering, Graphic International Design to name just a few. This supply chain would no doubt be severely affected with any move and further jeopardise other jobs on the site. A manufacturing business takes many years to grow and develop and with the current decline in UK wide manufacturing surely it should be sacrosanct to keep current jobs in the sector as well as in the local community.
Pawle and Co accept the current Country wide issue with lack of houses and the need to continue to build homes however there are many alternative options here, for example many of the fields around the borough (and adjacent to the industrial park) and also derelict sites where works for example to expand the m25 have finished. Surely it is better to explore those options rather than risk the future of many local jobs by impacting the current industrial park. Also many of the staff currently employed live locally and in the current economic climate would likely struggle to find new jobs not to mention the upset and stress this would cause to them and their families.
Taking into account all the factors above there are serious concerns that this thriving small business could not withstand a move without significant help in terms of finding a suitable local facility, assistance with moving costs and a grant to support finding new supply chains after the current ones are impacted by the removal of this thriving industrial park. Many of our customers would also see a several week period where no orders could be fulfilled whilst a move takes place. This would further cause financial hardship to the business. This is not just a case of potentially putting us out of business but from a company point of view 18 employees would lose their jobs affecting 18 families and this is just the tip of the iceberg as many business here are in the same position as us. So far there have been no written guarantees that any of the above requests for support both financial and finding a suitable alternative local site have been considered properly.

This is an active industrial estate where businesses and employment would suffer as a consequence should this area be adopted for housing.

West Horndon Village cannot sustain the number of houses proposed by this development. The road network is not designed for such a large scale, the trains are already packed and bus links extremely limited. Showcase for the development showed no consideration to entrance of the development, a road to the A127 should be a mandatory requirement to prevent crowding and traffic through the village. Creating a roundabout at the entrance to the site would be an accident waiting to happen due to the speed at which cars cross the railway bridge.

Highways & Transportation comment -
Need for clear, tested mitigation for impact on highway network, especially the A127 and A128.
Development on these sites will need to be viewed from a holistic perspective to ensure that they contribute to a pool of funding to provide an enhanced level of bus service to serve the 580 homes planned. It will also be important to ensure that the design layout of the sites facilitates sustainable access, ideally with bus gates or other interventions designed to maximise such access whilst giving these modes a journey time advantage.

Hermes Investment Management is working with local people, the Parish Council and Brentwood Council Officers to develop a masterplan for the eastern portion of the West Horndon Industrial Estate. This work is at an advanced stage and we will submit a planning application shortly.

Hermes recently acquired Threadneedle's interest in the larger estate (the western side). The intention is In time this will also form part of the redevelopment of the whole estate as well. It will be a later phase and the subject of a separate planning application; however, it will follow the design principles established by the masterplan for the eastern side (which is the subject of the planning application referred to).

Whilst Hermes broadly supports the approach set out by the Council, there are significant concerns about the Council's new requirement for provision of Gypsy and Travellers Sites. This 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 object to this revised local plan for the reasons as follows :-

The green fields around West Horndon are designated as Metropolitan Green Belt, put in place to stop the London sprawl.

Too much housing planned for Dunton Garden Suburb this planned housing should be distributed in the North of the borough as well as the South. We have a two track railway here C2C. Shenfield has more than double that number of tracks. With the additional benefit of cross rail.
The north of the borough also will benefit by the expansion of the A12.
The increase of traffic on the A127 (which is already at full capacity) and other local roads will cause traffic chaos in the area.
This higher level of road traffic will also be the source of much higher air pollution in the local residential area.
There will also be a much higher demand for school places and appointments at the doctors .
The added threat of flooding with the possibility of the surface water going into the Mardyke river from the huge development planned for Dunton Garden Suburb. Where as a much smaller development here and spreading the rest of the housing through out the borough would be a more sensible approach.



Basildon hospital and the small inadequate doctors surgery in West Horndon will not cope with the volume of people that you propose to house in this area. Especially as there is much more land available in the North of the borough and hospitals in nearby Chelmsford.

Whilst I agree with the development of housing on the Industrial site in West Horndon I am appalled to learn that you plan to leave and move parts of the Industrial Estate still within this location. We have had to put up with huge juggernaut lorries speeding through this village on roads not designed for this type of transport. Also to put a travellers site within the village, with all the problems this could cause. Who will want to purchase a house with that next door. The people in Crays Hill have had huge problems selling their homes and all the village children were taken out of the local school. Having recently experienced some members of the travelling community whilst visiting a Tesco store helping themselves to groceries and then leaving with out paying, it fills me with despair that you want to place them in this village.

I have looked at the plans for West Horndon and can only say you will destroy what is a great community and a village atmosphere. I expect some growth but 580 properties and 10 travellers pitches will ruin a great village. 3500 at Dunton you may as well make and name a new town. The local roads and the A127 are already gridlocked.

The consultation document proposes a large number of possible sites for the development of residential and business properties. The supporting evidence on critical strategic infrastructure is poor; indeed they are described as "interim" and leave many issues not assessed. Of these the flood risk assessment for the area of West Horndon is a key missing assessment. West Horndon is recovered fen land and as such has poor natural drainage which was made much worse when in the 1800s the railway line was constructed. Subsequent industrial and residential development has only made matters even worse. Over many years there have been a number of significant incidents with properties being seriously flooded. Following floods in the early 1980s surface water drainage was improved but the risk is still significant and during the winters of both 2012 and 2013 properties were once again flooded. The NPPF is very clear (paragraphs 94 & 100 - 103) that any development must take full account of flood risk before development is considered. Given the lack of detailed flood risk assessment it is impossible for anyone to come to a view on the use of any of the sites in the West Horndon area because they cannot understand the flood risk. Thus, I question if this consultation is valid given the public are being asked to comment on something that no one can take an informed view of because of the lack of supporting evidence. The spatial strategy identifies the A127 corridor as an appropriate location for the development of new homes and business and employment opportunities. At first sight this is a reasonable approach, however there is no supporting evidence that infrastructure in the corridor could cope with the additional load such development would create. Currently the A127 is at or over capacity much of the time as is the C2C railway line. Given that other local authorities are proposing development that would need to be supported by the transport infrastructure of the A127 corridor there is no clear evidence that it will be possible to upgrade the current road and rail systems to cope with the additional housing/business development being proposed in this consultation document. I should point out that the rail line is only two tracks and Fenchurch Street station only has 4 platforms. It is hard to conceive that a significant increase in capacity can be created as there is no physical room for more platforms at Fenchurch Street and the line west of Upminster runs through dense residential development and thus the opportunity for upgrade must be minimal. Similarly, the A127 (which is only two lanes in each direction) west of Upminster also runs through residential areas thus increasing the number of lanes to increase capacity must be questionable. While I recognise the upgrade of strategic transport infrastructure is not within the remit of BBC, developing a Local Development Plan (LDP) in the absence of information about the critical infrastructure is a nonsense. The LDP should make it clear that any proposal is totally dependent on appropriate infrastructure upgrades being planned and implemented concurrently with the proposed development. I also point out that the trains from Brentwood and Shenfield are on the new Cross-Rail line and thus the capacity is significantly improved. There are plans to upgrade much of the A12 to three lanes in each direction - so with respect to transport infrastructure corridors it is the A12 corridor that would seem most appropriate to consider for residential and business development opportunities than the A127 corridor. This site, south of the Grade 2 listed East Horndon Hall is being proposed for development as an industrial site. This land is Green Belt and thus any development is inappropriate. The NPPF clearly states that for development to take place in the Green Belt very exceptional circumstances need to be demonstrated. None are. This land is also subject to flooding - it regularly has standing surface water and acts as a storage buffer which prevents flooding of the surrounding land including residential areas. The planning application 17/01597/EIASO which first proposed this site for development as a business park includes a surface water flood assessment which only looks at a superficial level at the site itself. This is contrary to the NPPF (paragraph 102) which requires a flood risk assessment that demonstrates that any such development does not increase flood risk elsewhere. Given the history of flooding in this area (properties were flooded, and the main road blocked in December 2012) this site is clearly inappropriate for any development. These now aging industrial sites are appropriate for redevelopment and redevelopment to residential (or part residential) use is appropriate for this brown field land. In broad outline I support these sites being redeveloped. However, there are a number of concerns that must be taken into account. 1. Access - the current access arrangement date back to the late 1930s when the site was first built. The amount of traffic in those days was significantly lower than today. The current land use means that much of the traffic is large HGV lorries which are large and easy to see. Redevelopment to mixed residential and business use will increase the number of cars and light van traffic which will increase the risk of accidents. There already a large number of small shunt accidents in the vicinity of the entrance to this site. Thus, it is imperative that before any redevelopment takes place vehicle and pedestrian access is properly resolved; 2. West Horndon is a rural community and the development must be sympathetic to this. This site is quoted as being 17.06ha. Given that rural residential development should be at about 30 properties per hectare the 580 quoted seems to be very much at the top end of the appropriate number; 3. Although West Horndon is identified as a transport hub on account of the Railway Station, access is only east/west so most residents will definitely need cars. It is imperative that the design of the site is such that car parking is at a higher level than is normal for transport hub locations. West Horndon already has significant residential parking problems and this redevelopment must not make that worse. Thus, the design and number of properties must be able accommodate sufficient parking. Design is for the normal planning process, but I would suggest that for the strategic purposes of the LDP the number of properties should not exceed 500 - reduced as necessary according to how much of the site remains in business employment usage. Broadly I support the development of these sites for employment. They are situated close to the M25 as a major transport link and their use especially for enterprises which use large amounts of HGV traffic would be welcomed as that would reduce HGV traffic through residential areas like the village of West Horndon. There are potential issues about access to these sites for staff working there, there is at present no public transport access. This detail will need to be dealt with at the full planning application stage. This area is Green Belt and thus development seems inappropriate. However, I do recognise that Brentwood is ~89% greenbelt and that opportunities for non-green belt development are limited. Given the strategic housing allocation central Government is imposing on BBC this area probably needs to be considered as an option. I point out that green belt to the north of the Borough is open and that development in such areas could be undertaken to make an isolated village(s). The Dunton Hills site is almost the last green belt gap between Upminster (London) and Southend thus the development of this site would basically create continuous development between London and Southend. This would seem to be contrary to the principles set out in the NPPF. I also question the ability to construct sufficient transport infrastructure to support the development, but I can find no assessments examining this situation in appropriate detail. However, given the situation BBC finds its self in Dunton Hills Garden Village (DHGV) may be the least worst option to meet the strategic housing allocation. If this is to proceed it must be done in such a way that the impact on the surrounding area and communities is limited to a minimum. To this end the western side of the site needs to be restricted and turned into a buffer zone e.g. by creating a woodland. This would have the effect of visual separation between the two villages and would also mitigate some of the potential flood risk that the development would create. It would also make future attempts to expand the development and join the two villages much more difficult. This approach is consistent with the guidance in the NPPF for change of use of green belt land. I suggest that the site map is modified to make it clear that there must be a buffer zone between the DHGV and the A128. If this development does proceed it will generate traffic between it and the railway station in West Horndon. Parking is already a problem in the village of West Horndon and it is essential that means to minimise and manage this are sought and incorporated at the very outset of planning. The current plan suggest that the required G&T site are developed and located adjacent to new residential developments as they are constructed. My understanding from the results previous consultations is that G&T communities prefer sites to be away from business and residential areas. Indeed, one G&T site situated just north of the A127/A128 junction has to my knowledge not been used in over 30 years. I understand this is because it is too close to other developments. This aspect of the site plan allocation needs a total rethink.

As a resident of Laindon I object to the above plan due the proposed large scale housing development in the Dunton and West Hornden area. The reasons for my objection are: 1) Environment. The Greenbelt in South West Essex provides a natural buffer between the outer east of London conurbations. It must be preserved for the benefit of all local residents and the wider community; 2) Local services and roads - the A127 is simply not capable of supporting a big increase in traffic that a development of this size would give rise to. The road is already prone to severe congestion in rush hour periods; 3) Amenities and roads within the Basildon Council boundary would be negatively impacted as a result of the increased population on Basildon's western border; 4) Housing demand - the expected future housing demands in the plan are based on incorrect growth assumptions prior to June 2016. The impact of the UK leaving the EU is expected to reduce migration to the UK and consequentially housing demand in Essex; 5) Location - if more housing on this scale is deemed necessary by BCC then any development should be located closer to the central area of Brentwood where key infrastructure already exists, i.e. good rail services (which are being improved when Cross rail is complete), the A12 (which is set to have major improvements to it on the Brentwood stretch) , schools, retail, etc.

I object to these proposals to trashing our green belt in west horndon and certainly object to travellers/gypsy sites in west horndon.

object to these proposals because I do not want west horndons green belt to be trashed and certainly object to any traveller/gypsy sites in West Horndon.

I object to these proposals as the reason I live in West Horndon is because it is a village, if I wanted to live in a town I would have moved to a town. We do not have the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate hundreds of new houses and residents and we certainly do not want travellers living in this village. The crime rate will inevitably increase resulting in higher insurance premiums.
This can not go ahead.

I object to these proposals as the reason I live in West Horndon is because it is a village, if I wanted to live in a town I would have moved to a town. We do not have the capacity and infrastructure to accommodate hundreds of new houses and residents and we certainly do not want travellers living in this village. The crime rate will inevitably increase resulting in higher insurance premiums.
This can not go ahead.

1: Any development in the West Horndon area must not be on the flood plain area's ie East Horndon Hall designated employment area.
2: New industrial estate near M25 junction has only road links no public transport to site. This junction is notorious for being jammed leaving the site stranded ,god forbid emergency services being unable to get to the site.
3: To Large a percentage of the plan is south of the A127 not nearly enough near new cross rail infrastructure.
4:Dunton garden suburb can only work if it does not rely only on the A127 as this road is at full capacity now. Public transport link essential other than road.

As a stake holder in Horndon industrial park I would like answers to the following please,

1/the plan indicates that you propose to demolish the industrial park and build 500 homes.is that correct and when ?

2/what plans if any are there to help the existing businesses to relocate.eg new sites and financial assistance for relocation ?

3/why demolish a thriving industrial community ?

4/why put houses before jobs.?

5/the industrial park is next to west Horndon rail station providing environmentally friendly access to employees. Any new sites will probably involve more car journeys.

6/have you been lobbied by the investment company/bank that own the site ?.the rich get richer at the expense of the workers.

As a stake holder in Horndon industrial park I would like answers to the following please,

1/the plan indicates that you propose to demolish the industrial park and build 500 homes.is that correct and when ?

2/what plans if any are there to help the existing businesses to relocate.eg new sites and financial assistance for relocation ?

3/why demolish a thriving industrial community ?

4/why put houses before jobs.?

5/the industrial park is next to west Horndon rail station providing environmentally friendly access to employees. Any new sites will probably involve more car journeys.

6/have you been lobbied by the investment company/bank that own the site ?.the rich get richer at the expense of the workers.

As a stake holder in Horndon industrial park I would like answers to the following please,

1/the plan indicates that you propose to demolish the industrial park and build 500 homes.is that correct and when ?

2/what plans if any are there to help the existing businesses to relocate.eg new sites and financial assistance for relocation ?

3/why demolish a thriving industrial community ?

4/why put houses before jobs.?

5/the industrial park is next to west Horndon rail station providing environmentally friendly access to employees. Any new sites will probably involve more car journeys.

6/have you been lobbied by the investment company/bank that own the site ?.the rich get richer at the expense of the workers.

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.

As requested I am providing feedback on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan, in terms of its impact on West Horndon village.

Like the vast majority of West Horndon residents, I would like West Horndon to remain the small village it is today. My wife and I moved here 22 years ago and it was a conscious decision to choose to live somewhere with a sense of community and with plenty of green space. We enjoy village life and it is a pleasant, safe place in which to raise our son.

I do however accept that some changes are necessary and have got reasonably comfortable with the residential development planned for the industrial estate. Although this would considerably increase the size of the village, it would also bring benefits, not least of which would be an end to the vast number of lorries thundering through the village, albeit many of these would be replaced by cars.

I disagree that this site is suitable for high density housing. The housing built on this site should be similar to and consistent with the existing housing in the village. There are also a lot of elderly people living in the village. Consideration should be given to building senior citizen housing. This would enable our senior citizens, when they reach the point when they cannot live entirely independently, to move to this accommodation. This would provide them with the support they need whilst enabling them to stay within their community. It would then free up their existing bungalows for new families.

I do not agree that the village has excellent transport links and was astonished to be told at a recent drop-in event that this was the main reason this area has been chosen for development. Yes we have a railway station and are close to the A127 and M25 but our trains and our roads are already extremely overcrowded and will not be able to cope with the extra amount of people. Your plan seems to ignore the equally important A12 and Crossrail opportunities. The impact on West Horndon also does not appear to have been taken into account regarding the plan to build Dunton Garden Village right next door to our village.

Whilst I appreciate that you need to come up with a viable plan to deliver the amount of housing required, I would urge you to consider the impact of any proposals you make on the lives of the people it will affect. The residents of West Horndon chose to live in a village, not a large town and our way of life should be respected as much as anyone else.

Finally, what I oppose most strongly in the plan is the proposal for us to have over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is a step too far. We should not have to accept over 60% of the housing, over 80% of the employment land allocations and over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is too much for one small village and these sites would not be compatible with our community and way of life. An alternative site should be found elsewhere in the Borough.

I expect there will be less responses to this plan than previous ones. You should not conclude from this that this means there is less concern or opposition to it. People have simply become weary of being asked to repeatedly comment on similar proposals and also do not believe that their representations are listened to or taken into account.

As requested I am providing feedback on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan, in terms of its impact on West Horndon village.

Like the vast majority of West Horndon residents, I would like West Horndon to remain the small village it is today. My wife and I moved here 22 years ago and it was a conscious decision to choose to live somewhere with a sense of community and with plenty of green space. We enjoy village life and it is a pleasant, safe place in which to raise our son.

I do however accept that some changes are necessary and have got reasonably comfortable with the residential development planned for the industrial estate. Although this would considerably increase the size of the village, it would also bring benefits, not least of which would be an end to the vast number of lorries thundering through the village, albeit many of these would be replaced by cars.

I disagree that this site is suitable for high density housing. The housing built on this site should be similar to and consistent with the existing housing in the village. There are also a lot of elderly people living in the village. Consideration should be given to building senior citizen housing. This would enable our senior citizens, when they reach the point when they cannot live entirely independently, to move to this accommodation. This would provide them with the support they need whilst enabling them to stay within their community. It would then free up their existing bungalows for new families.

I do not agree that the village has excellent transport links and was astonished to be told at a recent drop-in event that this was the main reason this area has been chosen for development. Yes we have a railway station and are close to the A127 and M25 but our trains and our roads are already extremely overcrowded and will not be able to cope with the extra amount of people. Your plan seems to ignore the equally important A12 and Crossrail opportunities. The impact on West Horndon also does not appear to have been taken into account regarding the plan to build Dunton Garden Village right next door to our village.

Whilst I appreciate that you need to come up with a viable plan to deliver the amount of housing required, I would urge you to consider the impact of any proposals you make on the lives of the people it will affect. The residents of West Horndon chose to live in a village, not a large town and our way of life should be respected as much as anyone else.

Finally, what I oppose most strongly in the plan is the proposal for us to have over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is a step too far. We should not have to accept over 60% of the housing, over 80% of the employment land allocations and over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is too much for one small village and these sites would not be compatible with our community and way of life. An alternative site should be found elsewhere in the Borough.

I expect there will be less responses to this plan than previous ones. You should not conclude from this that this means there is less concern or opposition to it. People have simply become weary of being asked to repeatedly comment on similar proposals and also do not believe that their representations are listened to or taken into account.

As requested I am providing feedback on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan, in terms of its impact on West Horndon village.

Like the vast majority of West Horndon residents, I would like West Horndon to remain the small village it is today. My wife and I moved here 22 years ago and it was a conscious decision to choose to live somewhere with a sense of community and with plenty of green space. We enjoy village life and it is a pleasant, safe place in which to raise our son.

I do however accept that some changes are necessary and have got reasonably comfortable with the residential development planned for the industrial estate. Although this would considerably increase the size of the village, it would also bring benefits, not least of which would be an end to the vast number of lorries thundering through the village, albeit many of these would be replaced by cars.

I disagree that this site is suitable for high density housing. The housing built on this site should be similar to and consistent with the existing housing in the village. There are also a lot of elderly people living in the village. Consideration should be given to building senior citizen housing. This would enable our senior citizens, when they reach the point when they cannot live entirely independently, to move to this accommodation. This would provide them with the support they need whilst enabling them to stay within their community. It would then free up their existing bungalows for new families.

I do not agree that the village has excellent transport links and was astonished to be told at a recent drop-in event that this was the main reason this area has been chosen for development. Yes we have a railway station and are close to the A127 and M25 but our trains and our roads are already extremely overcrowded and will not be able to cope with the extra amount of people. Your plan seems to ignore the equally important A12 and Crossrail opportunities. The impact on West Horndon also does not appear to have been taken into account regarding the plan to build Dunton Garden Village right next door to our village.

Whilst I appreciate that you need to come up with a viable plan to deliver the amount of housing required, I would urge you to consider the impact of any proposals you make on the lives of the people it will affect. The residents of West Horndon chose to live in a village, not a large town and our way of life should be respected as much as anyone else.

Finally, what I oppose most strongly in the plan is the proposal for us to have over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is a step too far. We should not have to accept over 60% of the housing, over 80% of the employment land allocations and over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is too much for one small village and these sites would not be compatible with our community and way of life. An alternative site should be found elsewhere in the Borough.

I expect there will be less responses to this plan than previous ones. You should not conclude from this that this means there is less concern or opposition to it. People have simply become weary of being asked to repeatedly comment on similar proposals and also do not believe that their representations are listened to or taken into account.

As requested I am providing feedback on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan, in terms of its impact on West Horndon village.

Like the vast majority of West Horndon residents, I would like West Horndon to remain the small village it is today. My wife and I moved here 22 years ago and it was a conscious decision to choose to live somewhere with a sense of community and with plenty of green space. We enjoy village life and it is a pleasant, safe place in which to raise our son.

I do however accept that some changes are necessary and have got reasonably comfortable with the residential development planned for the industrial estate. Although this would considerably increase the size of the village, it would also bring benefits, not least of which would be an end to the vast number of lorries thundering through the village, albeit many of these would be replaced by cars.

I disagree that this site is suitable for high density housing. The housing built on this site should be similar to and consistent with the existing housing in the village. There are also a lot of elderly people living in the village. Consideration should be given to building senior citizen housing. This would enable our senior citizens, when they reach the point when they cannot live entirely independently, to move to this accommodation. This would provide them with the support they need whilst enabling them to stay within their community. It would then free up their existing bungalows for new families.

I do not agree that the village has excellent transport links and was astonished to be told at a recent drop-in event that this was the main reason this area has been chosen for development. Yes we have a railway station and are close to the A127 and M25 but our trains and our roads are already extremely overcrowded and will not be able to cope with the extra amount of people. Your plan seems to ignore the equally important A12 and Crossrail opportunities. The impact on West Horndon also does not appear to have been taken into account regarding the plan to build Dunton Garden Village right next door to our village.

Whilst I appreciate that you need to come up with a viable plan to deliver the amount of housing required, I would urge you to consider the impact of any proposals you make on the lives of the people it will affect. The residents of West Horndon chose to live in a village, not a large town and our way of life should be respected as much as anyone else.

Finally, what I oppose most strongly in the plan is the proposal for us to have over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is a step too far. We should not have to accept over 60% of the housing, over 80% of the employment land allocations and over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is too much for one small village and these sites would not be compatible with our community and way of life. An alternative site should be found elsewhere in the Borough.

I expect there will be less responses to this plan than previous ones. You should not conclude from this that this means there is less concern or opposition to it. People have simply become weary of being asked to repeatedly comment on similar proposals and also do not believe that their representations are listened to or taken into account.

As requested I am providing feedback on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan, in terms of its impact on West Horndon village.

Like the vast majority of West Horndon residents, I would like West Horndon to remain the small village it is today. My wife and I moved here 22 years ago and it was a conscious decision to choose to live somewhere with a sense of community and with plenty of green space. We enjoy village life and it is a pleasant, safe place in which to raise our son.

I do however accept that some changes are necessary and have got reasonably comfortable with the residential development planned for the industrial estate. Although this would considerably increase the size of the village, it would also bring benefits, not least of which would be an end to the vast number of lorries thundering through the village, albeit many of these would be replaced by cars.

I disagree that this site is suitable for high density housing. The housing built on this site should be similar to and consistent with the existing housing in the village. There are also a lot of elderly people living in the village. Consideration should be given to building senior citizen housing. This would enable our senior citizens, when they reach the point when they cannot live entirely independently, to move to this accommodation. This would provide them with the support they need whilst enabling them to stay within their community. It would then free up their existing bungalows for new families.

I do not agree that the village has excellent transport links and was astonished to be told at a recent drop-in event that this was the main reason this area has been chosen for development. Yes we have a railway station and are close to the A127 and M25 but our trains and our roads are already extremely overcrowded and will not be able to cope with the extra amount of people. Your plan seems to ignore the equally important A12 and Crossrail opportunities. The impact on West Horndon also does not appear to have been taken into account regarding the plan to build Dunton Garden Village right next door to our village.

Whilst I appreciate that you need to come up with a viable plan to deliver the amount of housing required, I would urge you to consider the impact of any proposals you make on the lives of the people it will affect. The residents of West Horndon chose to live in a village, not a large town and our way of life should be respected as much as anyone else.

Finally, what I oppose most strongly in the plan is the proposal for us to have over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is a step too far. We should not have to accept over 60% of the housing, over 80% of the employment land allocations and over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is too much for one small village and these sites would not be compatible with our community and way of life. An alternative site should be found elsewhere in the Borough.

I expect there will be less responses to this plan than previous ones. You should not conclude from this that this means there is less concern or opposition to it. People have simply become weary of being asked to repeatedly comment on similar proposals and also do not believe that their representations are listened to or taken into account.

As requested I am providing feedback on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan, in terms of its impact on West Horndon village.

Like the vast majority of West Horndon residents, I would like West Horndon to remain the small village it is today. My wife and I moved here 22 years ago and it was a conscious decision to choose to live somewhere with a sense of community and with plenty of green space. We enjoy village life and it is a pleasant, safe place in which to raise our son.

I do however accept that some changes are necessary and have got reasonably comfortable with the residential development planned for the industrial estate. Although this would considerably increase the size of the village, it would also bring benefits, not least of which would be an end to the vast number of lorries thundering through the village, albeit many of these would be replaced by cars.

I disagree that this site is suitable for high density housing. The housing built on this site should be similar to and consistent with the existing housing in the village. There are also a lot of elderly people living in the village. Consideration should be given to building senior citizen housing. This would enable our senior citizens, when they reach the point when they cannot live entirely independently, to move to this accommodation. This would provide them with the support they need whilst enabling them to stay within their community. It would then free up their existing bungalows for new families.

I do not agree that the village has excellent transport links and was astonished to be told at a recent drop-in event that this was the main reason this area has been chosen for development. Yes we have a railway station and are close to the A127 and M25 but our trains and our roads are already extremely overcrowded and will not be able to cope with the extra amount of people. Your plan seems to ignore the equally important A12 and Crossrail opportunities. The impact on West Horndon also does not appear to have been taken into account regarding the plan to build Dunton Garden Village right next door to our village.

Whilst I appreciate that you need to come up with a viable plan to deliver the amount of housing required, I would urge you to consider the impact of any proposals you make on the lives of the people it will affect. The residents of West Horndon chose to live in a village, not a large town and our way of life should be respected as much as anyone else.

Finally, what I oppose most strongly in the plan is the proposal for us to have over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is a step too far. We should not have to accept over 60% of the housing, over 80% of the employment land allocations and over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is too much for one small village and these sites would not be compatible with our community and way of life. An alternative site should be found elsewhere in the Borough.

I expect there will be less responses to this plan than previous ones. You should not conclude from this that this means there is less concern or opposition to it. People have simply become weary of being asked to repeatedly comment on similar proposals and also do not believe that their representations are listened to or taken into account.

As requested I am providing feedback on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan, in terms of its impact on West Horndon village.

Like the vast majority of West Horndon residents, I would like West Horndon to remain the small village it is today. My wife and I moved here 22 years ago and it was a conscious decision to choose to live somewhere with a sense of community and with plenty of green space. We enjoy village life and it is a pleasant, safe place in which to raise our son.

I do however accept that some changes are necessary and have got reasonably comfortable with the residential development planned for the industrial estate. Although this would considerably increase the size of the village, it would also bring benefits, not least of which would be an end to the vast number of lorries thundering through the village, albeit many of these would be replaced by cars.

I disagree that this site is suitable for high density housing. The housing built on this site should be similar to and consistent with the existing housing in the village. There are also a lot of elderly people living in the village. Consideration should be given to building senior citizen housing. This would enable our senior citizens, when they reach the point when they cannot live entirely independently, to move to this accommodation. This would provide them with the support they need whilst enabling them to stay within their community. It would then free up their existing bungalows for new families.

I do not agree that the village has excellent transport links and was astonished to be told at a recent drop-in event that this was the main reason this area has been chosen for development. Yes we have a railway station and are close to the A127 and M25 but our trains and our roads are already extremely overcrowded and will not be able to cope with the extra amount of people. Your plan seems to ignore the equally important A12 and Crossrail opportunities. The impact on West Horndon also does not appear to have been taken into account regarding the plan to build Dunton Garden Village right next door to our village.

Whilst I appreciate that you need to come up with a viable plan to deliver the amount of housing required, I would urge you to consider the impact of any proposals you make on the lives of the people it will affect. The residents of West Horndon chose to live in a village, not a large town and our way of life should be respected as much as anyone else.

Finally, what I oppose most strongly in the plan is the proposal for us to have over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is a step too far. We should not have to accept over 60% of the housing, over 80% of the employment land allocations and over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is too much for one small village and these sites would not be compatible with our community and way of life. An alternative site should be found elsewhere in the Borough.

I expect there will be less responses to this plan than previous ones. You should not conclude from this that this means there is less concern or opposition to it. People have simply become weary of being asked to repeatedly comment on similar proposals and also do not believe that their representations are listened to or taken into account.

As requested I am providing feedback on the Brentwood Draft Local Plan, in terms of its impact on West Horndon village.

Like the vast majority of West Horndon residents, I would like West Horndon to remain the small village it is today. My wife and I moved here 22 years ago and it was a conscious decision to choose to live somewhere with a sense of community and with plenty of green space. We enjoy village life and it is a pleasant, safe place in which to raise our son.

I do however accept that some changes are necessary and have got reasonably comfortable with the residential development planned for the industrial estate. Although this would considerably increase the size of the village, it would also bring benefits, not least of which would be an end to the vast number of lorries thundering through the village, albeit many of these would be replaced by cars.

I disagree that this site is suitable for high density housing. The housing built on this site should be similar to and consistent with the existing housing in the village. There are also a lot of elderly people living in the village. Consideration should be given to building senior citizen housing. This would enable our senior citizens, when they reach the point when they cannot live entirely independently, to move to this accommodation. This would provide them with the support they need whilst enabling them to stay within their community. It would then free up their existing bungalows for new families.

I do not agree that the village has excellent transport links and was astonished to be told at a recent drop-in event that this was the main reason this area has been chosen for development. Yes we have a railway station and are close to the A127 and M25 but our trains and our roads are already extremely overcrowded and will not be able to cope with the extra amount of people. Your plan seems to ignore the equally important A12 and Crossrail opportunities. The impact on West Horndon also does not appear to have been taken into account regarding the plan to build Dunton Garden Village right next door to our village.

Whilst I appreciate that you need to come up with a viable plan to deliver the amount of housing required, I would urge you to consider the impact of any proposals you make on the lives of the people it will affect. The residents of West Horndon chose to live in a village, not a large town and our way of life should be respected as much as anyone else.

Finally, what I oppose most strongly in the plan is the proposal for us to have over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is a step too far. We should not have to accept over 60% of the housing, over 80% of the employment land allocations and over 50% of the new gypsy and traveller sites. This is too much for one small village and these sites would not be compatible with our community and way of life. An alternative site should be found elsewhere in the Borough.

I expect there will be less responses to this plan than previous ones. You should not conclude from this that this means there is less concern or opposition to it. People have simply become weary of being asked to repeatedly comment on similar proposals and also do not believe that their representations are listened to or taken into account.

First I have logged in and registered but was unable to find the link for submission to this plan and the helpline telephone number displayed in your system responded as un available, and when I telephoned the Council number and pushed various buttons for planning department I held on for 7 minutes and received no reply. So I have had to resort to this email rather than using the website for our submission

Please note my new address at XX from that given on my letter of submission dated 21st March 2016 a copy of which is attached.

Our concerns set out in the attached letter still subsist and the continued uncertainty does not assist the management of Bolsons Limited in planning the future development of the company and providing for additional employment. You will see that the Crossrail development in East London did considerable damage to Bolsons Limited, and the delay of over 6 years in finalising the protracted compensation claim was a major drain on management time and again caused unwarranted uncertainty.

My Manager attended the consultation meeting last Monday and inter alia gained the impression that the Brentwood Borough Council did not intend to exercise compulsory purchase powers and in particular to Unit 64 and other modern units at Hordon Industrial Park ,who as with Bolsons have 999 year leases. However I having been a Lawyer since 1961 and my late father ended his distinguished legal career at the Department of Environment- Land Commission having acted for a number of land owners in particular in the redevelopment of Milton Keynes, I am aware that policies are liable to change.

It is clear that the Council want to allocate the WHIE site for residential or residential-led development (see e.g. the Preferred Allocations doc at paras 116 and 129 and at p79). The high point seems to be at p79 where the site is proposed for residential with "potential retention of some employment..." . This is despite the fact that the document also emphasises the need for additional employment land to secure economic growth - see eg para 119. Again could you please elucidate?.

Interestingly, one of the key parts of the "evidence base" to justify the Plan (the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment - which should assess the merits of the site and its potential for housing and employment development) does not appear to have been finalised and published, so it does seem a bit cart before horse to be specifying Preferred Allocations. We therefore expect the Assessment may be available internally in draft to Officers and will doubtless reach a similar assessment. Please give some indication as to when this should become available to Bolsons?

We think therefore, there are two possible approaches (as previously) - (i) that Bolsons should oppose in principle on the basis that the site should remain solely in employment use, or (ii) that Bolsons should once the consultation process evolves make representations welcoming (or being neutral about) mixed use, provided we have comfort that the modern premises on the estate with long leases etc are part of the Council's vision and objectives for such future mixed residential and employment uses on the site. National policy is very supportive of mixed use development, and of sustainable development - in particular the opportunity to reduce car travel, so locating suitable employment close to residential we understand is a good thing. That said, the crucial matter that would need to be considered when masterplanning such a site would be what would constitute "suitable" employment in the circumstances, as the Council will need to conclude that some employment/industrial use would work - in terms of creating good residential amenity (avoiding new houses next to noisy industry etc).We submit that the current operation of Bolsons constitute such suitable employment and would contribute to the residential amenity.

We therefore refer you back to the representations made by Bolsons on the last occasion and emphasise the need for employment land and support for small, local businesses etc) and expressing neutrality/support for mixed use, and state that provided Bolsons are provided with enough information to conclude that Bolsons has a future as part of the brave new world and, absent such comfort, and once again express our opposition to the loss of employment land. We would therefore welcome an opportunity to speak to an officer in the Forward Planning/Strategic Planning team and ask them to provide information as to how the Council sees the future of the industrial uses on site. It may be that the ambition can be supported/ or at least something Bolson's could be neutral about, but we don't know enough now to be able to take a view (other than one of concern) at this stage.

We understand that the Government requires Plans should be realistic and deliverable - i.e. it is no good allocating land that cannot in reality be delivered because of constraints/ viability issues etc. And would therefore welcome your elucidation at an early opportunity.

We submit that the Council needs to explain how it proposes to deliver housing on the Estate, when there are X businesses or Y% of the Estate on long leases (and in modern buildings etc)., So it would enable to understand how the Council propose the allocation of the land for housing can actually be delivered, given that at least some of the Estate is held on long interests. If the Council are already thinking that the newer buildings on long leases could be designed into a masterplan of the site, then that would be some comfort if we were supplied with details as early as possible.

We reserve the right to submit further representations as when the consultation process develops.

2016 comments were attached.

First I have logged in and registered but was unable to find the link for submission to this plan and the helpline telephone number displayed in your system responded as un available, and when I telephoned the Council number and pushed various buttons for planning department I held on for 7 minutes and received no reply. So I have had to resort to this email rather than using the website for our submission

Please note my new address at XX from that given on my letter of submission dated 21st March 2016 a copy of which is attached.

Our concerns set out in the attached letter still subsist and the continued uncertainty does not assist the management of Bolsons Limited in planning the future development of the company and providing for additional employment. You will see that the Crossrail development in East London did considerable damage to Bolsons Limited, and the delay of over 6 years in finalising the protracted compensation claim was a major drain on management time and again caused unwarranted uncertainty.

My Manager attended the consultation meeting last Monday and inter alia gained the impression that the Brentwood Borough Council did not intend to exercise compulsory purchase powers and in particular to Unit 64 and other modern units at Hordon Industrial Park ,who as with Bolsons have 999 year leases. However I having been a Lawyer since 1961 and my late father ended his distinguished legal career at the Department of Environment- Land Commission having acted for a number of land owners in particular in the redevelopment of Milton Keynes, I am aware that policies are liable to change.

It is clear that the Council want to allocate the WHIE site for residential or residential-led development (see e.g. the Preferred Allocations doc at paras 116 and 129 and at p79). The high point seems to be at p79 where the site is proposed for residential with "potential retention of some employment..." . This is despite the fact that the document also emphasises the need for additional employment land to secure economic growth - see eg para 119. Again could you please elucidate?.

Interestingly, one of the key parts of the "evidence base" to justify the Plan (the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment - which should assess the merits of the site and its potential for housing and employment development) does not appear to have been finalised and published, so it does seem a bit cart before horse to be specifying Preferred Allocations. We therefore expect the Assessment may be available internally in draft to Officers and will doubtless reach a similar assessment. Please give some indication as to when this should become available to Bolsons?

We think therefore, there are two possible approaches (as previously) - (i) that Bolsons should oppose in principle on the basis that the site should remain solely in employment use, or (ii) that Bolsons should once the consultation process evolves make representations welcoming (or being neutral about) mixed use, provided we have comfort that the modern premises on the estate with long leases etc are part of the Council's vision and objectives for such future mixed residential and employment uses on the site. National policy is very supportive of mixed use development, and of sustainable development - in particular the opportunity to reduce car travel, so locating suitable employment close to residential we understand is a good thing. That said, the crucial matter that would need to be considered when masterplanning such a site would be what would constitute "suitable" employment in the circumstances, as the Council will need to conclude that some employment/industrial use would work - in terms of creating good residential amenity (avoiding new houses next to noisy industry etc).We submit that the current operation of Bolsons constitute such suitable employment and would contribute to the residential amenity.

We therefore refer you back to the representations made by Bolsons on the last occasion and emphasise the need for employment land and support for small, local businesses etc) and expressing neutrality/support for mixed use, and state that provided Bolsons are provided with enough information to conclude that Bolsons has a future as part of the brave new world and, absent such comfort, and once again express our opposition to the loss of employment land. We would therefore welcome an opportunity to speak to an officer in the Forward Planning/Strategic Planning team and ask them to provide information as to how the Council sees the future of the industrial uses on site. It may be that the ambition can be supported/ or at least something Bolson's could be neutral about, but we don't know enough now to be able to take a view (other than one of concern) at this stage.

We understand that the Government requires Plans should be realistic and deliverable - i.e. it is no good allocating land that cannot in reality be delivered because of constraints/ viability issues etc. And would therefore welcome your elucidation at an early opportunity.

We submit that the Council needs to explain how it proposes to deliver housing on the Estate, when there are X businesses or Y% of the Estate on long leases (and in modern buildings etc)., So it would enable to understand how the Council propose the allocation of the land for housing can actually be delivered, given that at least some of the Estate is held on long interests. If the Council are already thinking that the newer buildings on long leases could be designed into a masterplan of the site, then that would be some comfort if we were supplied with details as early as possible.

We reserve the right to submit further representations as when the consultation process develops.

2016 comments were attached.