I am writing to express my total opposition to Honeypot Lane being proposed as a preferred site under the local plan and wish to see the site removed as a preferred site for additional homes.
My reasons are as follows:
For years Honeypot Lane has been used as a rat run. The Lane - note a Lane not a road - would not cope with the significant extra traffic that 200 homes plus a Care Home would bring if it were used as an access to/from the proposed site. It is narrow and has been designated a 20-mph limit area for good reason.

There is a major safety issue - there have been accidents in Honeypot Lane due to the speed of traffic, even though it is a restricted speed area. In addition, any such development would put lots of extra pressure on the pinch point in Weald Road,
which at the moment is too narrow for two cars to pass each other on route to or from the High Street.

If cars cannot reach the High Street via Weald Road, the traffic will then impact on other cut-through roads, e.g. Sandpit Lane, Park Road etc. to Ongar Road or London Road, bringing major congestion and the increased probability of accidents. In the case of vehicles heading for the A12/M25, Honeypot Lane will grind to a halt and the Homestead estate will also be swamped with vehicles. In fact, all surrounding roads that provide access will be affected.

When there are problems on the A12/M25, which occur with great regularity, the resulting extra traffic trying to avoid the town centre is already a problem; these extra cars will just exacerbate the chaos and will add to the impact on Brentwood.
The impact of the additional movements of a possible 500 extra cars, together with parcel/shopping delivery and other vehicles, from the proposed development to Brentwood/Shenfield stations, local schools, access to the A12 and M25, together with its effect on all the surrounding roads, which were not built for this volume of traffic, will bring even more disruption at crucial times of the day. Any
construction traffic will make the resultant traffic chaos unimaginably worse.

There have already been a significant number of houses built in the vicinity of Brentwood town centre in recent years; this further proposed development will add to the over-development.

The noise and pollution resulting from the A12 is already a problem; further building would only exacerbate the problem.

Our nearest local schools, St. Peter's and Holly Trees, are already oversubscribed. Therefore, this will add to the traffic chaos surrounding Brentwood when parents have to travel further afield to take their children to schools out of area.

Our local doctors' surgeries are already at capacity - in fact, it already takes 3 to 4 weeks to obtain an appointment.

The proposed site is already subject to flooding. In fact, there is a stream that runs through it, which flows from the higher ground around the High Street/London Road.

If any new development were built on this proposed area, then it would increase the risk of flooding to other nearby areas - water will always find a way out. The houses would have huge problems obtaining buildings insurance, if indeed it were possible at all, in light of Insurance companies reviewing their stance due to an increase in flooding claims and the effects of climate change. It seems totally irresponsible to consider building homes on land that will flood, especially in light of the effects of previous planning disasters which have seen residents forced out of their homes in places like Cumbria, Somerset and in the Thames Valley.

It is to be pointed out the Brook Road, Talbrook, etc.- nearby roads - have their names for a reason!

Drainage has always been a problem in Honeypot Lane, which I am sure even your own records will confirm.

Wildlife, such as bats, badgers, pheasants, foxes, newts, etc. use the proposed site and nearby area. In addition to the above, I would draw your attention to the following further arguments against the suggested development at Honeypot Lane.

You are suggesting a major development on greenfield site on the edge of the built up area. When the site was originally put forward the Council, rejected it because it did not meet the Spatial Strategy.
The spatial strategy states that:
"To meet local needs fully there will be limited release of Green Belt for development within transport corridors, in strategic locations to deliver self-sustaining communities with accompanying local services, and urban extensions with clear defensible physical boundaries to avoid further sprawl and provide development swiftly."

And that all development sites will be identified having regard to whether they:
a) are accessible to public transport, services and facilities;
b) will have no significant impact on the Green Belt, visual amenity, heritage, transport and
environmental quality including landscape, wildlife, flood-risk, air and water pollution; and
c) are likely to come forward over the Plan period.
The plan provides no details to support the proposal, only the boundaries and location of the proposed site, and the number of dwellings it might accommodate. There is no explanation as to why the site is thought to be suitable for this scale of development.

The proposal makes reference to an evidence base and infrastructure but is only able to say that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming". No other evidence is put forward.

National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, and flood risk, and its ability to meet forecast demands. This has not been done.

Local residents are being asked to comment on a major proposal, having been presented with only an outline of what is proposed. It is not known therefore what benefits, if any, there might be for the area, or how the scheme might seek to mitigate against the many harmful impacts.

The Borough Council are therefore attempting a consultation exercise on a proposal which is at best sketchy, is poorly researched, and premature in terms of an evidence base. Overall therefore it is illconceived.

The National Planning Policy framework says that local planning authorities should aim to involve all sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions, which should facilitate neighbourhood planning.
It also says that:
"Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been
made."
In passing the Localism Act the Government has said that:
"Too often, power was exercised by people who were not directly affected by the decisions they were taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them."
The plan and the consultation process have so far been a top down process, with little regard for the involvement of the local community.
The National Planning Policy Framework states that:
"The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."
The proposal is within the Green Belt. National planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful.
Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt land. The Government has clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute the exceptional circumstances to justify such loss.
The site would project out into open Green Belt land, bounded only by narrows lanes, with open fields beyond.
Whether new development can be proved to be sustainable is central to planning policy. Sustainable is defined as "ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations". In practice the essential requirement is that new homeowners will not be over dependent on the car for journeys to work, school, shops, leisure activities, and other services and amenities.
The proposed site is on the western edge of the town, over 1 kilometre from the centre of the town and further still from Brentwood railway station and access to the A12/M25.
If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the site does not offer a sustainable location.
A development of some 200 houses would increase traffic levels on roads and junctions that are already inadequate.
There is no indication as to where the main access to the site would be located, or what improvements to Honeypot Lane and Weald Road might be necessary, if indeed they are feasible, or how they will be funded.
The Council's website indicates that the impact and the need for infrastructure supporting new development will be considered in greater detail by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Local Plan.
Council have only just on (29th January) launched an infrastructure Delivery Plan website. There is no information about Honeypot Lane.
The proposals are not clear on the mix and proportion of land uses, with what appears to be a leaning towards an almost wholly residential scheme.
There is no question that a development of the scale proposed will greatly increase the volume of traffic passing through the surrounding residential streets.
Overall the concern is that the people of the local community are most likely to suffer the harmful impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked gardens and properties, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits.
There is no evidence that the Council has carried any assessment of drainage in the area. National guidance states that: "Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of developments that would be expected of the area, responding to local character and being visually attractive."
A local planning authority should also submit a plan for examination which is "sound", in respect of how it is prepared, whether proposals are properly justified, whether it can be delivered, and whether it is consistent with national policy.
Given the level and extent of the concerns as set out above, the plan clearly has fundamental shortcomings. It is not therefore sound or robust.
In view of the aforementioned, we contend that the posited development of Honeypot Lane be scrapped and that the faceless land owners, who are not part of the local community, are informed that their speculative venture has failed, as a result of overwhelming location opposition and for the many reasons referred to above.

I am writing to express my total opposition to Honeypot Lane being proposed as a preferred site under the local plan and wish to see the site removed as a preferred site for additional homes.

My reasons are as follows:
For years Honeypot Lane has been used as a rat run. The Lane - note a Lane not a road - would not cope with the significant extra traffic that 200 homes plus a Care Home would bring if it were used as an access to/from the proposed site. It is narrow and has been designated a 20-mph limit area for good reason.

There is a major safety issue - there have been accidents in Honeypot Lane due to the speed of traffic, even though it is a restricted speed area.

In addition, any such development would put lots of extra pressure on the pinch point in Weald Road, which at the moment is too narrow for two cars to pass each other on route to or from the High Street.

If cars cannot reach the High Street via Weald Road, the traffic will then impact on other cut-through roads, e.g. Sandpit Lane, Park Road etc. to Ongar Road or London Road, bringing major congestion and the increased probability of accidents. In the case of vehicles heading for the A12/M25, Honeypot Lane will grind to a halt and the Homestead estate will also be swamped with vehicles. In fact, all surrounding roads that provide access will be affected.
When there are problems on the A12/M25, which occur with great regularity, the resulting extra traffic trying to avoid the town centre is already a problem; these extra cars will just exacerbate the chaos and will add to the impact on Brentwood.

The impact of the additional movements of a possible 500 extra cars, together with parcel/shopping delivery and other vehicles, from the proposed development to Brentwood/Shenfield stations, local schools, access to the A12 and M25, together with its effect on all the surrounding roads, which were not built for this volume of traffic, will bring even more disruption at crucial times of the day. Any construction traffic will make the resultant traffic chaos unimaginably worse.

There have already been a significant number of houses built in the vicinity of Brentwood town centre in recent years; this further proposed development will add to the over-development.

The noise and pollution resulting from the A12 is already a problem; further building would only exacerbate the problem.

Our nearest local schools, St. Peter's and Holly Trees, are already oversubscribed. Therefore, this will add to the traffic chaos surrounding Brentwood when parents have to travel further afield to take their children to schools out of area.
Our local doctors' surgeries are already at capacity - in fact, it already takes 3 to 4 weeks to obtain an appointment.

The proposed site is already subject to flooding. In fact, there is a stream that runs through it, which flows from the higher ground around the High Street/London Road.
If any new development were built on this proposed area, then it would increase the risk of flooding to other nearby areas - water will always find a way out. The houses would have huge problems obtaining buildings insurance, if indeed it were possible at all, in light of Insurance companies reviewing their stance due to an increase in flooding claims and the effects of climate change. It seems totally irresponsible to consider building homes on land that will flood, especially in light of the
effects of previous planning disasters which have seen residents forced out of their homes in places like Cumbria, Somerset and in the Thames Valley.

It is to be pointed out the Brook Road, Talbrook, etc.- nearby roads - have their names for a reason! Drainage has always been a problem in Honeypot Lane, which I am sure even your own records will confirm.

Wildlife, such as bats, badgers, pheasants, foxes, newts, etc. use the proposed site and nearby area.
In addition to the above, I would draw your attention to the following further arguments against the suggested development at Honeypot Lane.
You are suggesting a major development on greenfield site on the edge of the built up area. When the site was originally put forward the Council, rejected it because it did not meet the Spatial Strategy.
The spatial strategy states that:
"To meet local needs fully there will be limited release of Green Belt for development within transport corridors, in strategic locations to deliver self-sustaining communities with accompanying local services, and urban extensions with clear defensible physical boundaries to avoid further sprawl and
provide development swiftly."

And that all development sites will be identified having regard to whether they:
a) are accessible to public transport, services and facilities;
b) will have no significant impact on the Green Belt, visual amenity, heritage, transport and environmental quality including landscape, wildlife, flood-risk, air and water pollution; and
c) are likely to come forward over the Plan period.
The plan provides no details to support the proposal, only the boundaries and location of the proposed site, and the number of dwellings it might accommodate. There is no explanation as to why the site is thought to be suitable for this scale of development.
The proposal makes reference to an evidence base and infrastructure but is only able to say that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming". No other evidence is put forward. National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, and flood risk, and its ability to
meet forecast demands. This has not been done.

Local residents are being asked to comment on a major proposal, having been presented with only an outline of what is proposed. It is not known the refore what benefits, if any, there might be for the area, or how the scheme might seek to mitigate against the many harmful impacts.
The Borough Council are therefore attempting a consultation exercise on a proposal which is at best sketchy, is poorly researched, and premature in terms of an evidence base. Overall therefore it is illconceived. The National Planning Policy framework says that local planning authorities should aim to involve all
sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions, which should facilitate neighbourhood planning.

It also says that: "Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable
development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made."

In passing the Localism Act the Government has said that: "Too often, power was exercised by people who were not directly affected by the decisions they were
taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them."

The plan and the consultation process have so far been a top down process, with little regard for the involvement of the local community.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that:
"The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

The proposal is within the Green Belt. National planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful.
Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt land. The Government has clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute the exceptional circumstances to justify such loss.

The site would project out into open Green Belt land, bounded only by narrows lanes, with open fields beyond.

Whether new development can be proved to be sustainable is central to planning policy. Sustainable is defined as "ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations". In practice the essential requirement is that new homeowners will not be over dependent on the car for journeys to work, school, shops, leisure activities, and other services and amenities.

The proposed site is on the western edge of the town, over 1 kilometre from the centre of the town and further still from Brentwood railway station and access to the A12/M25. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the site does not offer a sustainable location.
A development of some 200 houses would increase traffic levels on roads and junctions that are already inadequate.

There is no indication as to where the main access to the site would be located, or what improvements to Honeypot Lane and Weald Road might be necessary, if indeed they are feasible, or how they will be funded.

The Council's website indicates that the impact and the need for infrastructure supporting new development will be considered in greater detail by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Local Plan.

Council have only just on (29th January) launched an infrastructure Delivery Plan website. There is no information about Honeypot Lane. The proposals are not clear on the mix and proportion of land uses, with what appears to be a leaning
towards an almost wholly residential scheme. There is no question that a development of the scale proposed will greatly increase the volume of
traffic passing through the surrounding residential streets. Overall the concern is that the people of the local community are most likely to suffer the harmful
impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked gardens and properties, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits.

There is no evidence that the Council has carried any assessment of drainage in the area. National guidance states that: "Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of developments that would be expected of the area, responding to local character and being visually attractive."
A local planning authority should also submit a plan for examination which is "sound", in respect of how it is prepared, whether proposals are properly justified, whether it can be delivered, and whether it is consistent with national policy.

Given the level and extent of the concerns as set out above, the plan clearly has fundamental shortcomings. It is not therefore sound or robust.
In view of the aforementioned, we contend that the posited development of Honeypot Lane be scrapped and that the faceless land owners, who are not part of the local community, are informed that their speculative venture has failed, as a result of overwhelming location opposition and for the many reasons referred to above.

I am writing to express my total opposition to Honeypot Lane being proposed as a preferred site under the local plan and wish to see the site removed as a preferred site for additional homes.

My reasons are as follows:
For years Honeypot Lane has been used as a rat run. The Lane - note a Lane not a road - would not cope with the significant extra traffic that 200 homes plus a Care Home would bring if it were used as an access to/from the proposed site. It is narrow and has been designated a 20-mph limit area for good reason.

There is a major safety issue - there have been accidents in Honeypot Lane due to the speed of traffic, even though it is a restricted speed area.

In addition, any such development would put lots of extra pressure on the pinch point in Weald Road, which at the moment is too narrow for two cars to pass each other on route to or from the High Street.

If cars cannot reach the High Street via Weald Road, the traffic will then impact on other cut-through roads, e.g. Sandpit Lane, Park Road etc. to Ongar Road or London Road, bringing major congestion and the increased probability of accidents. In the case of vehicles heading for the A12/M25, Honeypot Lane will grind to a halt and the Homestead estate will also be swamped with vehicles. In fact, all surrounding roads that provide access will be affected.
When there are problems on the A12/M25, which occur with great regularity, the resulting extra traffic trying to avoid the town centre is already a problem; these extra cars will just exacerbate the chaos and will add to the impact on Brentwood.

The impact of the additional movements of a possible 500 extra cars, together with parcel/shopping delivery and other vehicles, from the proposed development to Brentwood/Shenfield stations, local schools, access to the A12 and M25, together with its effect on all the surrounding roads, which were not built for this volume of traffic, will bring even more disruption at crucial times of the day. Any construction traffic will make the resultant traffic chaos unimaginably worse.

There have already been a significant number of houses built in the vicinity of Brentwood town centre in recent years; this further proposed development will add to the over-development.

The noise and pollution resulting from the A12 is already a problem; further building would only exacerbate the problem.

Our nearest local schools, St. Peter's and Holly Trees, are already oversubscribed. Therefore, this will add to the traffic chaos surrounding Brentwood when parents have to travel further afield to take their children to schools out of area.
Our local doctors' surgeries are already at capacity - in fact, it already takes 3 to 4 weeks to obtain an appointment.

The proposed site is already subject to flooding. In fact, there is a stream that runs through it, which flows from the higher ground around the High Street/London Road.
If any new development were built on this proposed area, then it would increase the risk of flooding to other nearby areas - water will always find a way out. The houses would have huge problems obtaining buildings insurance, if indeed it were possible at all, in light of Insurance companies reviewing their stance due to an increase in flooding claims and the effects of climate change. It seems totally irresponsible to consider building homes on land that will flood, especially in light of the
effects of previous planning disasters which have seen residents forced out of their homes in places like Cumbria, Somerset and in the Thames Valley.

It is to be pointed out the Brook Road, Talbrook, etc.- nearby roads - have their names for a reason! Drainage has always been a problem in Honeypot Lane, which I am sure even your own records will confirm.

Wildlife, such as bats, badgers, pheasants, foxes, newts, etc. use the proposed site and nearby area.
In addition to the above, I would draw your attention to the following further arguments against the suggested development at Honeypot Lane.
You are suggesting a major development on greenfield site on the edge of the built up area. When the site was originally put forward the Council, rejected it because it did not meet the Spatial Strategy.
The spatial strategy states that:
"To meet local needs fully there will be limited release of Green Belt for development within transport corridors, in strategic locations to deliver self-sustaining communities with accompanying local services, and urban extensions with clear defensible physical boundaries to avoid further sprawl and
provide development swiftly."

And that all development sites will be identified having regard to whether they:
a) are accessible to public transport, services and facilities;
b) will have no significant impact on the Green Belt, visual amenity, heritage, transport and environmental quality including landscape, wildlife, flood-risk, air and water pollution; and
c) are likely to come forward over the Plan period.
The plan provides no details to support the proposal, only the boundaries and location of the proposed site, and the number of dwellings it might accommodate. There is no explanation as to why the site is thought to be suitable for this scale of development.
The proposal makes reference to an evidence base and infrastructure but is only able to say that an "Infrastructure Delivery Plan is forthcoming". No other evidence is put forward. National guidance states that Local Planning Authorities should assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, and flood risk, and its ability to
meet forecast demands. This has not been done.

Local residents are being asked to comment on a major proposal, having been presented with only an outline of what is proposed. It is not known the refore what benefits, if any, there might be for the area, or how the scheme might seek to mitigate against the many harmful impacts.
The Borough Council are therefore attempting a consultation exercise on a proposal which is at best sketchy, is poorly researched, and premature in terms of an evidence base. Overall therefore it is illconceived. The National Planning Policy framework says that local planning authorities should aim to involve all
sections of the community in the development of Local Plans and in planning decisions, which should facilitate neighbourhood planning.

It also says that: "Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable
development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made."

In passing the Localism Act the Government has said that: "Too often, power was exercised by people who were not directly affected by the decisions they were
taking. This meant, understandably, that people often resented what they saw as decisions and plans being foisted on them."

The plan and the consultation process have so far been a top down process, with little regard for the involvement of the local community.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that:
"The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

The proposal is within the Green Belt. National planning guidance is clear that development in the Green Belt is by definition inappropriate and harmful.
Exceptional circumstances must exist to justify the loss of Green Belt land. The Government has clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute the exceptional circumstances to justify such loss.

The site would project out into open Green Belt land, bounded only by narrows lanes, with open fields beyond.

Whether new development can be proved to be sustainable is central to planning policy. Sustainable is defined as "ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations". In practice the essential requirement is that new homeowners will not be over dependent on the car for journeys to work, school, shops, leisure activities, and other services and amenities.

The proposed site is on the western edge of the town, over 1 kilometre from the centre of the town and further still from Brentwood railway station and access to the A12/M25. If the residents of the new development have no choice but to make most journeys by car, the site does not offer a sustainable location.
A development of some 200 houses would increase traffic levels on roads and junctions that are already inadequate.

There is no indication as to where the main access to the site would be located, or what improvements to Honeypot Lane and Weald Road might be necessary, if indeed they are feasible, or how they will be funded.

The Council's website indicates that the impact and the need for infrastructure supporting new development will be considered in greater detail by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and the Local Plan.

Council have only just on (29th January) launched an infrastructure Delivery Plan website. There is no information about Honeypot Lane. The proposals are not clear on the mix and proportion of land uses, with what appears to be a leaning
towards an almost wholly residential scheme. There is no question that a development of the scale proposed will greatly increase the volume of
traffic passing through the surrounding residential streets. Overall the concern is that the people of the local community are most likely to suffer the harmful
impacts of the development by way of increased traffic, overlooked gardens and properties, loss of rural character, without any discernible benefits.

There is no evidence that the Council has carried any assessment of drainage in the area. National guidance states that: "Local Plans should develop robust and comprehensive policies that set out the quality of developments that would be expected of the area, responding to local character and being visually attractive."
A local planning authority should also submit a plan for examination which is "sound", in respect of how it is prepared, whether proposals are properly justified, whether it can be delivered, and whether it is consistent with national policy.

Given the level and extent of the concerns as set out above, the plan clearly has fundamental shortcomings. It is not therefore sound or robust.
In view of the aforementioned, we contend that the posited development of Honeypot Lane be scrapped and that the faceless land owners, who are not part of the local community, are informed that their speculative venture has failed, as a result of overwhelming location opposition and for the many reasons referred to above.

I'd like to register my objection to developing the Honeypot lane site to meet Brentwood's planning needs.
As a local resident, it is clear that the local roads and services are ill equipped to accommodate such a large scale development.
The development will have a material detrimental impact to the neighbouring residents.

I understand that any comments made in previous consultations will be carried forward to this current consultation. With regard to the latest documentation, the Interim SA Report of Jan 2018, I note that the criteria of the "Traffic light" system Appendix 3 has changed. More interestingly regarding Site 022 in 8 out of 17 of the current criteria the site "performs badly". Information is not provided regarding what would be required for the site to be deemed unsuitable for housing. At the last consultation I provided details of where the previous SA report was incorrect and Site 022 should have had a worse result than provided. It seems that part of this has been rectified by the Consultants specifying that distances for schools and GP surgeries are now provided by road, although they do not specify where they have made a starting point. As the site is over 10 hectares it seems to show a lack of detail. For example, it is now suggested that walking distance to a Primary school is between 800m and 1.5k, but I would suggest whatever starting point is used that distance is only feasible if using roads which have the national speed limit and no footpaths. If using roads with footpaths the minimum distance is 2.1k to St Peter's using the last house in Honeypot Lane as the starting point. It seems to me that there has not been any "local knowledge" applied by those who have prepared the SA. I have measured to St Peter's as it is the school which is allocated to Site 022 according to the documentation. I trust that the Consultants have not measured to Holly Trees Primary which has been allocated to several other sites, but not Site 022. In view of the above, and the errors which occurred in the previous SA, I find it difficult to believe that Appendix 3 of the SA would stand up to serious scrutiny, it is misleading and surely can only be used sparingly as evidence. One of the constraints mentioned is the proximity of the A12, but no comment has been made in the report that it is proposed to increase the A12 to three lanes which will add increased environmental factors on to Site 022. Currently the Green Belt is uninterrupted from Brentwood Town Centre, and building on Site 022 would create a wedge which I believe would be unacceptable. Within the National Planning Framework it implies that exceptional circumstances must exist to justify loss of Green Belt, and the Government has clarified that housing demand is unlikely to constitute exceptional circumstances. I would also highlight that although there have been several consultations and many questions which have been previously raised have not been answered. Very little evidence has been revealed as to why Site 022 was chosen, especially as it is Green Belt, other than the assumption that developers and their consultants have placed undue pressure on Brentwood Council, in the developers own financial interest. This aspect seems to be implied from the website of Chilmark Consulting. (link to on-line article provided). I also note that a C2 facility of 40 beds is now included for Site 022. What impact assessment has been made for this facility on this site, and additionally what effect will this have on the surrounding infrastructure?

A few thoughts primarily in relation to the Officers Meadows site and other associated sites off Chelmsford Rd:
I was surprised that no mention was made of the known traffic and site access problems associated with these locations that have been previously acknowledged. (as these issues are well known I won't take up your time by repeating them here). These problems would be exacerbated when there is a problem on the A12 and traffic diverts onto Chelmsford Road. I noticed various other sites had major issues referenced in the latest document, but these issues were not.
Another resident previously mentioned to me that in the past planning permission for these locations has also been turned down because of the remains of an Iron age fort. I have not noticed that factor being mentioned this time round at all.
This land has a tendency to become quite sodden when there have been high levels of rainfall, with water pooling in some locations.
I have noticed a considerable number of self-sown Oak-tree seedlings on the site (over 200 without leaving the path), and I think given the opportunity, this land would return to native English forest, which is so badly needed. This is also a valuable wildlife habitat. I am aware of voles, moles, rabbits, foxes, badgers. Various birds, including woodpeckers owls, and small birds of prey - sparrowhawks I think.
Site 022 - Brentwood currently has no junction on the A12. I wonder if this site could be used in the future to provide such, even if it was just a relief valve onto the A12.
The tendency for the whole area to gridlock when there is a problem at Brook Street roundabout is an issue affecting any increase in car usage in Brentwood/Shenfield, so is an implication for many of the sites. The first priority needs to be a slip road off the A12 onto the M25 at Brook St Roundabout to help relieve these issues. This is an issue for Essex, not just Brentwood.

A few thoughts primarily in relation to the Officers Meadows site and other associated sites off Chelmsford Rd:
I was surprised that no mention was made of the known traffic and site access problems associated with these locations that have been previously acknowledged. (as these issues are well known I won't take up your time by repeating them here). These problems would be exacerbated when there is a problem on the A12 and traffic diverts onto Chelmsford Road. I noticed various other sites had major issues referenced in the latest document, but these issues were not.
Another resident previously mentioned to me that in the past planning permission for these locations has also been turned down because of the remains of an Iron age fort. I have not noticed that factor being mentioned this time round at all.
This land has a tendency to become quite sodden when there have been high levels of rainfall, with water pooling in some locations.
I have noticed a considerable number of self-sown Oak-tree seedlings on the site (over 200 without leaving the path), and I think given the opportunity, this land would return to native English forest, which is so badly needed. This is also a valuable wildlife habitat. I am aware of voles, moles, rabbits, foxes, badgers. Various birds, including woodpeckers owls, and small birds of prey - sparrowhawks I think.
Site 022 - Brentwood currently has no junction on the A12. I wonder if this site could be used in the future to provide such, even if it was just a relief valve onto the A12.
The tendency for the whole area to gridlock when there is a problem at Brook Street roundabout is an issue affecting any increase in car usage in Brentwood/Shenfield, so is an implication for many of the sites. The first priority needs to be a slip road off the A12 onto the M25 at Brook St Roundabout to help relieve these issues. This is an issue for Essex, not just Brentwood.

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.

Our local facilities and schools are already oversubscribed and at breaking point. A development here will have a detrimental effect on the homes in Honeypot Lane, Weald Road, the Homesteads and historic South Weald. Traffic in Honey Lane is already at a maximum and Parking difficult.

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.

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.

We were dismayed to learn of the proposed development to Honeypot Lane.
It is baffling that a possible expansion to St Peter's Primary School was turned down to preserve Greenbelt land, only to find the same land potentially laid bare to the developers. It is double standards at best.
Where will all these children be educated and medically looked after? St Peter's gates are shut and the building of a new surgery would be a miracle.
The land is of poor quality for such a development, due to drainage issues and potential flooding.
Our current bad weather caused chaos all over the town. Do we really want flooded houses to be added to the list?
The rural character of the Homesteads estate would be lost. There would be increased traffic and heavy plant chaos for the duration of a five year build. Our roads will become 'rat runs', impacting on local residents with pollution and safety implications. Our children are enjoying safe and quiet roads at the moment.
Please think of those who already live here and don't change the peace in this tranquil part of Brentwood.
We hope our views will be listened to and taken on board in your discussions.

We were dismayed to learn of the proposed development to Honeypot Lane.
It is baffling that a possible expansion to St Peter's Primary School was turned down to preserve Greenbelt land, only to find the same land potentially laid bare to the developers. It is double standards at best.
Where will all these children be educated and medically looked after? St Peter's gates are shut and the building of a new surgery would be a miracle.
The land is of poor quality for such a development, due to drainage issues and potential flooding.
Our current bad weather caused chaos all over the town. Do we really want flooded houses to be added to the list?
The rural character of the Homesteads estate would be lost. There would be increased traffic and heavy plant chaos for the duration of a five year build. Our roads will become 'rat runs', impacting on local residents with pollution and safety implications. Our children are enjoying safe and quiet roads at the moment.
Please think of those who already live here and don't change the peace in this tranquil part of Brentwood.
We hope our views will be listened to and taken on board in your discussions.

I am writing to vigorously object to the proposed development of the planned 200 houses and 40 bed care home for Honeypot Lane.
As you are fully aware, previous applications for development on this site were rejected as this did not meet the council spatial strategy for metropolitan greenbelt land, and as far as we are aware, nothing has changed.
The road infrastructure would be incapable of dealing with the additional traffic this development would cause.
There would also be a huge increase demand on local schools and doctor surgeries. The doctor's surgery, which we are patients, for this area is already over stretched with it taking an average 6 weeks to get an appointment.
On a personal note, we made a decision to move to this area 5 years ago, because of its community spirit and village feel, along with the open space which we understood to be green belt and as such guarded for such a development.
Since moving in we have enjoyed many evening and weekend walks observing the local wildlife and scenery offered by greenbelt land. This would be lost with the proposed development.
If we wanted to live in the middle of a housing estate, we would have stayed where we previously lived!
Although we fully appreciate the ongoing demand for housing, this development would completely change the character of this area. As such we cannot stress strongly enough our objection to this proposed development.

I am writing to vigorously object to the proposed development of the planned 200 houses and 40 bed care home for Honeypot Lane.
As you are fully aware, previous applications for development on this site were rejected as this did not meet the council spatial strategy for metropolitan greenbelt land, and as far as we are aware, nothing has changed.
The road infrastructure would be incapable of dealing with the additional traffic this development would cause.
There would also be a huge increase demand on local schools and doctor surgeries. The doctor's surgery, which we are patients, for this area is already over stretched with it taking an average 6 weeks to get an appointment.
On a personal note, we made a decision to move to this area 5 years ago, because of its community spirit and village feel, along with the open space which we understood to be green belt and as such guarded for such a development.
Since moving in we have enjoyed many evening and weekend walks observing the local wildlife and scenery offered by greenbelt land. This would be lost with the proposed development.
If we wanted to live in the middle of a housing estate, we would have stayed where we previously lived!
Although we fully appreciate the ongoing demand for housing, this development would completely change the character of this area. As such we cannot stress strongly enough our objection to this proposed development.

I am writing to vigorously object to the proposed development of the planned 200 houses and 40 bed care home for Honeypot Lane.
As you are fully aware, previous applications for development on this site were rejected as this did not meet the council spatial strategy for metropolitan greenbelt land, and as far as we are aware, nothing has changed.
The road infrastructure would be incapable of dealing with the additional traffic this development would cause.
There would also be a huge increase demand on local schools and doctor surgeries. The doctor's surgery, which we are patients, for this area is already over stretched with it taking an average 6 weeks to get an appointment.
On a personal note, we made a decision to move to this area 5 years ago, because of its community spirit and village feel, along with the open space which we understood to be green belt and as such guarded for such a development.
Since moving in we have enjoyed many evening and weekend walks observing the local wildlife and scenery offered by greenbelt land. This would be lost with the proposed development.
If we wanted to live in the middle of a housing estate, we would have stayed where we previously lived!
Although we fully appreciate the ongoing demand for housing, this development would completely change the character of this area. As such we cannot stress strongly enough our objection to this proposed development.

I am writing to vigorously object to the proposed development of the planned 200 houses and 40 bed care home for Honeypot Lane.
As you are fully aware, previous applications for development on this site were rejected as this did not meet the council spatial strategy for metropolitan greenbelt land, and as far as we are aware, nothing has changed.
The road infrastructure would be incapable of dealing with the additional traffic this development would cause.
There would also be a huge increase demand on local schools and doctor surgeries. The doctor's surgery, which we are patients, for this area is already over stretched with it taking an average 6 weeks to get an appointment.
On a personal note, we made a decision to move to this area 5 years ago, because of its community spirit and village feel, along with the open space which we understood to be green belt and as such guarded for such a development.
Since moving in we have enjoyed many evening and weekend walks observing the local wildlife and scenery offered by greenbelt land. This would be lost with the proposed development.
If we wanted to live in the middle of a housing estate, we would have stayed where we previously lived!
Although we fully appreciate the ongoing demand for housing, this development would completely change the character of this area. As such we cannot stress strongly enough our objection to this proposed development.

I am writing to vigorously object to the proposed development of the planned 200 houses and 40 bed care home for Honeypot Lane.
As you are fully aware, previous applications for development on this site were rejected as this did not meet the council spatial strategy for metropolitan greenbelt land, and as far as we are aware, nothing has changed.
The road infrastructure would be incapable of dealing with the additional traffic this development would cause.
There would also be a huge increase demand on local schools and doctor surgeries. The doctor's surgery, which we are patients, for this area is already over stretched with it taking an average 6 weeks to get an appointment.
On a personal note, we made a decision to move to this area 5 years ago, because of its community spirit and village feel, along with the open space which we understood to be green belt and as such guarded for such a development.
Since moving in we have enjoyed many evening and weekend walks observing the local wildlife and scenery offered by greenbelt land. This would be lost with the proposed development.
If we wanted to live in the middle of a housing estate, we would have stayed where we previously lived!
Although we fully appreciate the ongoing demand for housing, this development would completely change the character of this area. As such we cannot stress strongly enough our objection to this proposed development.

HONEYPOT LANE SITE 022: I am writing to express my objections to the above site being included in the Development Plan. The proposed site forms part of the Green Belt and as such, should be protected at all cost from any development. It is essential that the "green" areas on the edge of Brentwood remain so, especially as this particular location borders the A12 and the trees and hedges provide an element of protection against the noise and pollution generated by the A12, which is due to be widened to incorporate a third lane making the building of houses on the proposed site a nonsense. There is abundant wildlife in the fields whose habitat would be destroyed, our back garden - which borders the site, is often visited by badgers whose sets may well be located in the fields. Access to the site via Honeypot Lane is limited by the narrowness of the road - traffic along Honeypot Lane is already difficult, as it is impossible for two cars to pass each other at its narrowest point; cars are driving on the pavement as it is, endangering pedestrians. Accommodating additional traffic resulting from an additional 200 houses and a care home (traffic generated by staff, delivery vans, ambulances and visitors throughout the day, not just at already very busy peak times) can only be described as foolish and accidents waiting to happen. Cars travel at speeds way above speed limits on what is a shortcut to London Road even where visibility is limited, at the junction with Hill Road. Brentwood West has already been earmarked for the provision of additional dwellings in Hubert Road (136 dwellings) and on the former police station site (70 dwellings), both of which will add very significantly to the traffic using both Honeypot Lane and London Road thus compounding existing problems, and increasing the congestion at the top of Honeypot Lane, thus making the site inadequate for the purpose of development. The number of new dwellings in the area will put enormous strain on the local schools and surgeries which are already operating at full capacity and cannot accommodate additional numbers without causing even further detriment to Brentwood people. The proposed site has also been identified as a flood area and drainage is an issue. I believe that these are compelling reasons to remove the site from the development plan; there are other sites outside of green belt area which would provide better opportunities for housing and protect amenities for local residents.

Sir / Madam
Can I ask why Honeypot Lane is still a proposed site for developing 200 houses . Are you just totally ignoring how the residents feel ?
We had a signed petition that built up in many hundreds ,Surely common sense tells you that this should not be considered and that the new Dunton Village site would be able to take on the required additional housing as it will hopefully have the facilities to take it. I notice that the only consideration you have is the flooding for Honeypot Lane !! which is a consistent issue down a very narrow lane but what about all the other issues.?
The narrow restriction in the Lane and also in Weald Road which causes congestion all the way up to Laura Ashley Corner , why would you want to increase another flow of on average 300 cars ? and that is without the increase from Nags Head Lane development which will also be using this already congested bit of road as we all know Honeypot is cut through. Some mornings it takes me 10- 15 minutes to reverse into Honeypot Road from my sloped drive way due to the cars queuing to get out either end of the Lane.
The schools are already over subscribed in the area
You have to wait 10 days- 2 weeks for the local Doctor because they are over subscribed
Dentist is about 4- 6 weeks waiting list
Sainsbury's despite increasing spaces still cant cope with the demand and the queue to get in blocks up all along the back of the high street and you also want to loose another car park and increase the traffic flow ?
Its just madness and is in the totally wrong place surely Dunton Village could take on most of this additional housing. Honeypot Lane along with Nags Head, Police site etc. is all too much in a concentrated bit of Brentwood Please Please listen to the people that live there.
I await with your rationale behind the decision
Many Thanks

Sir / Madam
Can I ask why Honeypot Lane is still a proposed site for developing 200 houses . Are you just totally ignoring how the residents feel ?
We had a signed petition that built up in many hundreds ,Surely common sense tells you that this should not be considered and that the new Dunton Village site would be able to take on the required additional housing as it will hopefully have the facilities to take it. I notice that the only consideration you have is the flooding for Honeypot Lane !! which is a consistent issue down a very narrow lane but what about all the other issues.?
The narrow restriction in the Lane and also in Weald Road which causes congestion all the way up to Laura Ashley Corner , why would you want to increase another flow of on average 300 cars ? and that is without the increase from Nags Head Lane development which will also be using this already congested bit of road as we all know Honeypot is cut through. Some mornings it takes me 10- 15 minutes to reverse into Honeypot Road from my sloped drive way due to the cars queuing to get out either end of the Lane.
The schools are already over subscribed in the area
You have to wait 10 days- 2 weeks for the local Doctor because they are over subscribed
Dentist is about 4- 6 weeks waiting list
Sainsbury's despite increasing spaces still cant cope with the demand and the queue to get in blocks up all along the back of the high street and you also want to loose another car park and increase the traffic flow ?
Its just madness and is in the totally wrong place surely Dunton Village could take on most of this additional housing. Honeypot Lane along with Nags Head, Police site etc. is all too much in a concentrated bit of Brentwood Please Please listen to the people that live there.
I await with your rationale behind the decision
Many Thanks

Sir / Madam
Can I ask why Honeypot Lane is still a proposed site for developing 200 houses . Are you just totally ignoring how the residents feel ?
We had a signed petition that built up in many hundreds ,Surely common sense tells you that this should not be considered and that the new Dunton Village site would be able to take on the required additional housing as it will hopefully have the facilities to take it. I notice that the only consideration you have is the flooding for Honeypot Lane !! which is a consistent issue down a very narrow lane but what about all the other issues.?
The narrow restriction in the Lane and also in Weald Road which causes congestion all the way up to Laura Ashley Corner , why would you want to increase another flow of on average 300 cars ? and that is without the increase from Nags Head Lane development which will also be using this already congested bit of road as we all know Honeypot is cut through. Some mornings it takes me 10- 15 minutes to reverse into Honeypot Road from my sloped drive way due to the cars queuing to get out either end of the Lane.
The schools are already over subscribed in the area
You have to wait 10 days- 2 weeks for the local Doctor because they are over subscribed
Dentist is about 4- 6 weeks waiting list
Sainsbury's despite increasing spaces still cant cope with the demand and the queue to get in blocks up all along the back of the high street and you also want to loose another car park and increase the traffic flow ?
Its just madness and is in the totally wrong place surely Dunton Village could take on most of this additional housing. Honeypot Lane along with Nags Head, Police site etc. is all too much in a concentrated bit of Brentwood Please Please listen to the people that live there.
I await with your rationale behind the decision
Many Thanks

Sir / Madam
Can I ask why Honeypot Lane is still a proposed site for developing 200 houses . Are you just totally ignoring how the residents feel ?
We had a signed petition that built up in many hundreds ,Surely common sense tells you that this should not be considered and that the new Dunton Village site would be able to take on the required additional housing as it will hopefully have the facilities to take it. I notice that the only consideration you have is the flooding for Honeypot Lane !! which is a consistent issue down a very narrow lane but what about all the other issues.?
The narrow restriction in the Lane and also in Weald Road which causes congestion all the way up to Laura Ashley Corner , why would you want to increase another flow of on average 300 cars ? and that is without the increase from Nags Head Lane development which will also be using this already congested bit of road as we all know Honeypot is cut through. Some mornings it takes me 10- 15 minutes to reverse into Honeypot Road from my sloped drive way due to the cars queuing to get out either end of the Lane.
The schools are already over subscribed in the area
You have to wait 10 days- 2 weeks for the local Doctor because they are over subscribed
Dentist is about 4- 6 weeks waiting list
Sainsbury's despite increasing spaces still cant cope with the demand and the queue to get in blocks up all along the back of the high street and you also want to loose another car park and increase the traffic flow ?
Its just madness and is in the totally wrong place surely Dunton Village could take on most of this additional housing. Honeypot Lane along with Nags Head, Police site etc. is all too much in a concentrated bit of Brentwood Please Please listen to the people that live there.
I await with your rationale behind the decision
Many Thanks

Sir / Madam
Can I ask why Honeypot Lane is still a proposed site for developing 200 houses . Are you just totally ignoring how the residents feel ?
We had a signed petition that built up in many hundreds ,Surely common sense tells you that this should not be considered and that the new Dunton Village site would be able to take on the required additional housing as it will hopefully have the facilities to take it. I notice that the only consideration you have is the flooding for Honeypot Lane !! which is a consistent issue down a very narrow lane but what about all the other issues.?
The narrow restriction in the Lane and also in Weald Road which causes congestion all the way up to Laura Ashley Corner , why would you want to increase another flow of on average 300 cars ? and that is without the increase from Nags Head Lane development which will also be using this already congested bit of road as we all know Honeypot is cut through. Some mornings it takes me 10- 15 minutes to reverse into Honeypot Road from my sloped drive way due to the cars queuing to get out either end of the Lane.
The schools are already over subscribed in the area
You have to wait 10 days- 2 weeks for the local Doctor because they are over subscribed
Dentist is about 4- 6 weeks waiting list
Sainsbury's despite increasing spaces still cant cope with the demand and the queue to get in blocks up all along the back of the high street and you also want to loose another car park and increase the traffic flow ?
Its just madness and is in the totally wrong place surely Dunton Village could take on most of this additional housing. Honeypot Lane along with Nags Head, Police site etc. is all too much in a concentrated bit of Brentwood Please Please listen to the people that live there.
I await with your rationale behind the decision
Many Thanks

Sir / Madam
Can I ask why Honeypot Lane is still a proposed site for developing 200 houses . Are you just totally ignoring how the residents feel ?
We had a signed petition that built up in many hundreds ,Surely common sense tells you that this should not be considered and that the new Dunton Village site would be able to take on the required additional housing as it will hopefully have the facilities to take it. I notice that the only consideration you have is the flooding for Honeypot Lane !! which is a consistent issue down a very narrow lane but what about all the other issues.?
The narrow restriction in the Lane and also in Weald Road which causes congestion all the way up to Laura Ashley Corner , why would you want to increase another flow of on average 300 cars ? and that is without the increase from Nags Head Lane development which will also be using this already congested bit of road as we all know Honeypot is cut through. Some mornings it takes me 10- 15 minutes to reverse into Honeypot Road from my sloped drive way due to the cars queuing to get out either end of the Lane.
The schools are already over subscribed in the area
You have to wait 10 days- 2 weeks for the local Doctor because they are over subscribed
Dentist is about 4- 6 weeks waiting list
Sainsbury's despite increasing spaces still cant cope with the demand and the queue to get in blocks up all along the back of the high street and you also want to loose another car park and increase the traffic flow ?
Its just madness and is in the totally wrong place surely Dunton Village could take on most of this additional housing. Honeypot Lane along with Nags Head, Police site etc. is all too much in a concentrated bit of Brentwood Please Please listen to the people that live there.
I await with your rationale behind the decision
Many Thanks

To make it clear I am not against development of new homes for Brentwood. No NIMBYISM here, however Brentwood Council are heading towards ruining the look of Brentwood by potentially allowing intense modern housing on this particular piece of land.( I am not against new homes at Honeypot Lane but I am truly terrified on how it is being approached and equally terrified my comments will not be properly considered) How I see the site when built:(Honeypot Lane) The houses will be built (as you say) by a national builder and I have every reason to believe the finished houses will be painted white/cream with a mixture of orange and grey roofs. They will be relatively small, crammed together and crucially they will be expensive. What is wrong with above approach? Apart from everything. 1-Not only will this Greenbelt land turn into a triangle of "ticky tacky houses" that will look the same as almost all modern houses going up all over the UK - and makes absolutely no "nod" to historic Brentwood, it will also form a non integrated wedge, a juxtaposition, if you like, abutting nearby housing. The view will be horrible coming from South Weald because it will be the first thing you see as you come over the brow of the hill if travelling from South Weald (allot of traffic from Romford areas use Weald Road.) 2- With all this mass housing being served up by national builders across the country they are forming pockets of starter homes that will end up having the same problems of social exclusion in much the same way as the 60's high rise flats did- Flats and crammed housing work the same way in terms of neighbour behaviour. It is basic stuff this but if you cram people together they build defensive social barriers- Sorry this is school by stuff but needs reminding every now and then. * Give this 20 or 30years and this will become a no go area on the bottom of any aspirational housing formula that could be applied. In effect, simply because of lack of vision, you are creating a situation, with this panic building, that will soon become socially divisive. *It would be better to use more greenbelt for houses that are of light density than trying to appease the public by using small amounts of Greenbelt resulting in crammed in homes. I realise this is a huge subject with many nuances but there are choices such as using more greenbelt with low height housing (even green roofs and underground dwelling space.) Too big a subject for here. The answer? 1-No matter how hard and inconvenient it will be, this land (if developed) needs to be lower* density (it has been Greenbelt for many decades after all) * IF this master plan has to have open green spaces within the site, the question to ask is (particularly on this site with South Weald Park literally across the road) would people prefer to have more space (garden) BETWEEN THEIR HOME OR A COMMUNIAL GREEN SPACE-? which always seems patronising anyway- I know what I would prefer. 2- This land needs to be allocated to self build/ commissioned builds with larger gardens (hence lower density)- May I suggest you (the Council) borrow money and buy this land and then sell off individual serviced plots to people that want to build heir own home and preference on the sale of these plots (that would be oversubscribed) to individuals that have or have had close associations with Brentwood. The developer/owner would not like this (much preferring to cram little expensive boxes on this Greenbelt but you (the Council) are in a more powerful position than anyone else to make this happen. 3- Allow people who build on this land a light touch with little design interference (need some degree of approval of course) but the Homesteads that abuts this land was created in the way I am describing. They were built and designed before the Planning Acts came into force in the late 1940's and now is probably one of the most desirable places to live in Brentwood with people appreciating the eclectic mix of house design amongst the tree lined avenues. There is no reason why this land could not be an updated version of this and it will integrate well into the housing that exists on the boundaries. Conclusion: I am advocating selling this land via individual lots to self builders and with a light touch of design will produce innovative individual properties that will be a positive legacy for Brentwood. This wedge site 022 is destined to become an abrupt incongruous lazy planning mistake. The Council has the power to change this site into an area of creativity and design. As long as the plots were of an adequate size for a decent size garden, it will mature into a leafy aspirational area that will integrate into nearby housing. A good example of this is Burses Way etc in Hutton. In the 1950's this land was developed by a private builder that offered housing that were of various designs and these houses interrogated well into Hutton Mount, People from Burses Way walked (and still do) through Hutton Mount to get the commuter trains to London from Shenfield station and there was no feeling of envy or social discord. Learn from the past or we are gong to end up with a horrible and isolated wedge of noddy houses with anti social consequences. The master Plan: Albeit I have not seen a master plan of this site or even know if one has been produced as of yet but any new sizeable development has got to fuse in some way into the surrounding areas or you get isolation and demarcations. If the proposed houses were self builds, and leafy, then the surrounding area (such as the Homesteads) would more readily accept a connection. The present strategy is heading for isolation and you simply DO NOT have to do this. Practicalities: I realise by making the density smaller may give rise to a shortage of the numbers of houses you are trying to achieve but you could find the extra housing within the existing settlement boundary with a little thought application and, dare I say it, a more proactive and creative planning team. Planning, in my opinion, has developed into a nasty game of brinkmanship and unintended Council hypocrisy, and this site needs an opposite approach with Planners making positive contributions by working with individuals building their own unique home. This site is great opportunity PLEASE don't let a national builder serve up their normal fair, rip our youngsters off, ruin the look of an important part of Brentwood before moving on to do the same elsewhere. Finally If you are going to use greenbelt (and understandably people do feel betrayed that you are) then let the housing fit with their neighbours in the way I have suggested. Once you build a housing estate of yawningly sameness you will have a hell of a job changing that later and missed a great opportunity to lead the way on how to use greenbelt sensitively. It seems you are going through this housing allocation like an arithmetical exorcise and not as peoples future homes. If this development goes ahead in the way it looks like it will go ahead (national builder etc)., the Council will be culpable in being party to our youngsters being ripped off.(and our local economy being mugged) What is the saying about giving a man a fish and not a fishing rod (excuse the mashed up metaphor)- This site could not lend itself better in terms of where it is and what it is next to (Homesteads for example) by allowing people to build their own quality homes. The Council could make a reasonable profit out of selling the serviced plots and people could create wonderful innovatively designed houses for the same amount of money as buying a national builders rabbit hatch. Let the local economy gain from the building of individual homes and not let the national builders come in and suck money out of our local economy. What I propose will be harder to administer than just letting big business get fat but the rewards will be worth it. Remember, people in the UK are in love with property, all you need to do is light the blue touchpaper and you will very soon see wonderful quality designed properties emerging. I guess what I am saying is it is about time that self serving national builders and Councils just got out of the way-(Please !)

022 - HoneyPot Lane:
* HoneyPot Lane is too narrow a road to accommodate additional traffic and frequently queues onto London Road in the morning and afternoon around school pick up time
* If housing is built on the site, additional primary school spaces need to be provided at St Peters (although there are restrictions with building at the school), at another school or a new school needs to be built as Holly Trees will also be placed under additional pressure
* Pavement access to the site to the High Street/Train Station would need to be substantially improved as it is poor
* If developed, site should have a substantial green barrier with the A12 for noise and air pollution control for residents

032 - Nags Head Lane:
* If housing is built on the site, additional primary school spaces need to be provided at St Peters (although there are restrictions with building at the school), at another school or a new school needs to be built as Holly Trees will also be placed under additional pressure
* Pavement access to the site to the High Street/Train Station would need to be substantially improved as it is poor
* If developed, site should have a substantial green barrier with the London Road for noise and air pollution control for residents

I would wish to record the objections of my wife, my son and myself to the above-proposed site being included within the Local Plan. The reasons for my objection are noted below:

The proposed development will ruin the rural environment in which I have lived for over 20 years. The development will create a huge housing estate almost equal in size to the Homesteads estate with more than double the density. It will destroy the character of the whole area. Even though the site is constrained and adjacent to the A12 the green open space is highly valued by local residents in terms of the environment and significantly contributes to the quite rural setting. You state in the plan that sites are also selected to prevent sprawl, however because of the restriction of he A12, traffic from the development can only disperse via Honey Pot and adjoining roads. A housing development of 200 homes will totally destroy the character of the whole area; create increased traffic related issues including noise nuisance and concerns related to safety and rat running.

The new St Charles development has created additional traffic nuisance through Honey Pot Lane and in particular Hill Road and the Homesteads estate. This is as a result of motorists having difficulties exiting at the junction of Honey Pot Lane and London Road; motorists now use Hill Road as a rat run. Indeed Councilor Will Russell admitted to me himself at a previou road show event at South Weald Parish Hall that he uses the estate as a through route taking his children to St Peters school. This will be made worse by increased traffic from the proposed development site and the inevitable widening of Honey Pot Lane next to the site.

Highway improvements although funded by the developer will not improve this situation regardless of how achieved, roundabout or traffic lights introduced at the junction of London Road and Honeypot Lane. London Road is an extremely busy Principle Road and will always be given traffic priority, increased traffic using Honey Pot Lane will not readily exit onto London Road and as a result will divert down Hill Road. Hill Road is a privately owned road, non adopted and should not be used as a through route to the M25 and London Road. Indeed the access into Hill Road should be closed if you permit this development to take place.

Access to the proposed site will have to be made via Honey Pot lane and as such, the narrow road adjacent to the site will I assume be widened this will make the use of the route from Weald Road to London more attractive as it will be easier to access and will further create increased traffic nuisance in Honey Pot Lane and again resulting in Hill Road and the Homesteads being used as a rat run and short cut to avoid the junction of Honey Pot Lane and London Road.

An additional concern related to the wider road network relates to motorists using a route from Ongar Road, Sandpit Lane, Weald Road to London Road this will inevitably result in increased traffic movement North - South if widening of Honey Pot Lane is carried out and the junction of Honey pot Lane and London road redesigned. Any increase in traffic using Honey Pot Lane will have a significant impact on Hill Road a private development of individually designed houses. Hill Road and the Homesteads Estate should not be a through route or rat run for traffic at any time.

Other proposed development sites within the draft plan will also have traffic implications in regards to Honey Pot Lane.

Unfortunately I was not able to attend the council meeting where our local Petition was discussed and I understand the council agreed to include the petition as part of the consultation process. However having viewed the video of the meeting I was amazed to hear one of the councilors mention that the inclusion of sites in the draft plan had not been considered previously by councilors. The inclusion of sites within the plan it would seem is officer led. Unfortunately officers had previously recommended a back garden development for approval on the Homesteads Estate that was rejected unanimously by all planning committee members and also rejected at a subsequent appeal. Hopefully officers will listen to the significant objections of local residents and remove the site from the plan.

A new huge housing development on the scale proposed in Honey Pot Lane will totally destroy the character and environment of the area, create increased local highway problems and add to problems associated with the North - South route created to access London Road and the M25. This development and density will be double the size of the existing estates of the Homesteads and surrounding properties and will totally transform the whole area for the worse for the existing community.

I strongly object to the proposed site being used for Housing Development and would hope that officers and councilors will take note of residents objections and also the petition presented to the council some time ago. I also do not believe you have considered the full potential of land adjacent to the A12 from Shenfield heading East to the A12. This land if at all is better suited particularly as it is also fronted by a principal road and the associated public transport link.

I would wish to record the objections of my wife, my son and myself to the above-proposed site being included within the Local Plan. The reasons for my objection are noted below:

The proposed development will ruin the rural environment in which I have lived for over 20 years. The development will create a huge housing estate almost equal in size to the Homesteads estate with more than double the density. It will destroy the character of the whole area. Even though the site is constrained and adjacent to the A12 the green open space is highly valued by local residents in terms of the environment and significantly contributes to the quite rural setting. You state in the plan that sites are also selected to prevent sprawl, however because of the restriction of he A12, traffic from the development can only disperse via Honey Pot and adjoining roads. A housing development of 200 homes will totally destroy the character of the whole area; create increased traffic related issues including noise nuisance and concerns related to safety and rat running.

The new St Charles development has created additional traffic nuisance through Honey Pot Lane and in particular Hill Road and the Homesteads estate. This is as a result of motorists having difficulties exiting at the junction of Honey Pot Lane and London Road; motorists now use Hill Road as a rat run. Indeed Councilor Will Russell admitted to me himself at a previou road show event at South Weald Parish Hall that he uses the estate as a through route taking his children to St Peters school. This will be made worse by increased traffic from the proposed development site and the inevitable widening of Honey Pot Lane next to the site.

Highway improvements although funded by the developer will not improve this situation regardless of how achieved, roundabout or traffic lights introduced at the junction of London Road and Honeypot Lane. London Road is an extremely busy Principle Road and will always be given traffic priority, increased traffic using Honey Pot Lane will not readily exit onto London Road and as a result will divert down Hill Road. Hill Road is a privately owned road, non adopted and should not be used as a through route to the M25 and London Road. Indeed the access into Hill Road should be closed if you permit this development to take place.

Access to the proposed site will have to be made via Honey Pot lane and as such, the narrow road adjacent to the site will I assume be widened this will make the use of the route from Weald Road to London more attractive as it will be easier to access and will further create increased traffic nuisance in Honey Pot Lane and again resulting in Hill Road and the Homesteads being used as a rat run and short cut to avoid the junction of Honey Pot Lane and London Road.

An additional concern related to the wider road network relates to motorists using a route from Ongar Road, Sandpit Lane, Weald Road to London Road this will inevitably result in increased traffic movement North - South if widening of Honey Pot Lane is carried out and the junction of Honey pot Lane and London road redesigned. Any increase in traffic using Honey Pot Lane will have a significant impact on Hill Road a private development of individually designed houses. Hill Road and the Homesteads Estate should not be a through route or rat run for traffic at any time.

Other proposed development sites within the draft plan will also have traffic implications in regards to Honey Pot Lane.

Unfortunately I was not able to attend the council meeting where our local Petition was discussed and I understand the council agreed to include the petition as part of the consultation process. However having viewed the video of the meeting I was amazed to hear one of the councilors mention that the inclusion of sites in the draft plan had not been considered previously by councilors. The inclusion of sites within the plan it would seem is officer led. Unfortunately officers had previously recommended a back garden development for approval on the Homesteads Estate that was rejected unanimously by all planning committee members and also rejected at a subsequent appeal. Hopefully officers will listen to the significant objections of local residents and remove the site from the plan.

A new huge housing development on the scale proposed in Honey Pot Lane will totally destroy the character and environment of the area, create increased local highway problems and add to problems associated with the North - South route created to access London Road and the M25. This development and density will be double the size of the existing estates of the Homesteads and surrounding properties and will totally transform the whole area for the worse for the existing community.

I strongly object to the proposed site being used for Housing Development and would hope that officers and councilors will take note of residents objections and also the petition presented to the council some time ago. I also do not believe you have considered the full potential of land adjacent to the A12 from Shenfield heading East to the A12. This land if at all is better suited particularly as it is also fronted by a principal road and the associated public transport link.