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

002 - Brentwood Rail Car park
Removing the car park to make way for housing development is a big concern. Those who need to use the car park to commute via train are likely to need access to their cars, in order to transport children to and from nursery for example before and after a working day. Public transport is not just the easy answer and careful consideration needs to be made on the impact this will have.

Honeypot Lane - 022
Honeypot Lane and Weald Road (St Faith's Walk) is used by residents to relax, walk their dogs and enjoy the fresh air. It separates the existing houses between Honepypot Lane and Borromeo way well. If this land is up for development it will become densely populated. The biggest concern in addition to taking away more greenbelt land for all to enjoy is the local infrastructure. Our country roads are not built to take this amount of traffic. We are already grid locked as you head onto London road at the bottom of the high street and encouraging people to drive through Honeypot lane or Weald Road is not going to improve the volume of traffic but make it considerably worse and unpleasant for those who live there. Also schools are a big factor. It is difficult to understand how we will be able to provide more school places for all new residents, given most schools are not based on catchment area and serves an already large area of Brentwood already. On a yearly basis, school subscription for St Peters, St Helen's and St Thomas's, in particular, are oversubscribed.

Doddinghurst - 023A and 023B
Similarly the land here, serves the right balance between being next to the A12 and still making it feel like we live in the countryside, for the residents and people who access the area. Infrastructure is also a big concern. The Doddinghurst Road, leading onto Ongar Road is one of the few main roads we have running through Brentwood. When its busy we are already grid locked at rush hour and weekends, so providing a further 200 homes will not improve things. It was mentioned that public transport could be an option to assist with this, but we are not that well equipped to provide this support network for the distances people travel. Similarly, schools within the Doddinghurst Road area are already oversubscribed, so it would be good to understand how this will be dealt with to ensure all residents in the area and the borough get their first choice, given ECC make a point of championing this.

William Hunter Way - 102 and Chatham Way 040
These car parks serve a number of shoppers/visitors coming in to Brentwood given the central location. Parking is already limited, and it doesn't feel we are serving the community or town well if we remove these car parks. There is a concern it could have a reverse effect on the number of people choosing to come into the town for shopping thus having a negative impact on retail within the high st. Public transport is equally not a simple solution for the needs of the everyday resident i.e. families or the elderly. Creating densely populated areas in close proximity of the town will not add to its character either but will make the town feel overcrowded and chaotic.

Priests Lane - site ref 178 and 044 and Crescent Drive - 186
This land offers existing residents and visitors the space to enjoy our green spaces. By cannibalising this with further development it will only contribute to densely populated areas, more pressure on our roads and school places.

Dunton Hills Garden Village - xxxx
It will be a sad loss to the area if we choose to lose this green space especially for those who currently reside there and play golf in the area. It is understood that this development will be created to run self-sufficiently in terms of expansions of health care, and creation of new schools. However, it needs further exploration around the demographic we choose to attract and if it is anticipated this overspill will go into Basildon and Grays in terms of shopping and transport links for rail and how this will impact residents there. The biggest concern is that if this development goes ahead it will fundamentally change our landscape and population make-up for good.


General comment overall:
From the plans and having spoken to council representatives, it can be seen that there has been careful consideration on where the number of homes can be expanded and over time, in order to try and avoid eating too much into greenbelt and creating a balance within the Borough. Likewise, the plans for creating business in the area is positive. However, that said, it is important to protect the Borough and its greenbelt for future generations to enjoy. It would be good to understand if we can challenge the Government's quota as they will be just looking at ensuring more homes are created rather than how this will affect the Borough for generations to come.

The biggest concern with the expansion overall, in particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village, is how do we ensure we retain the Borough as it currently stands. Overall, Brentwood is considered an affluent town with good primary schools and a traditional high street. It is important that with the constant changes we still maintain this. For example, ensuring we continue to attract the right demographic i.e. professionals and families and those from retirement age who will value and look after the Borough's future, as well as developing homes that are in keeping with the local area (i.e. red brick homes, rather than continual modern architecture which appears to be springing up).

Having the infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare to support such an expansion and increasing population is also important, in particular, within the urban area of Brentwood. There needs to be clear evidence we are able to provide this before any development commences, as it is already evident that our school places are oversubscribed, and our roads are already congested, in particular Ongar Road and Shenfield Road. Public transport cannot just be the simple answer nor simply building new roads. We cannot model solutions on what London offers transport wise, because we are within the London corridor. We are still very much a Borough in the countryside and we should make every effort to protect this and the quality of life for all now and for the future.

There is also reference in the documentation of the local plans for entertainment. If this is to be considered we need to strike the balance with making it for all to enjoy, without creating additional issues such as crime and rubbish.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brentwood doesn't have the infrastructure either.

002 - Brentwood Rail Car park
Removing the car park to make way for housing development is a big concern. Those who need to use the car park to commute via train are likely to need access to their cars, in order to transport children to and from nursery for example before and after a working day. Public transport is not just the easy answer and careful consideration needs to be made on the impact this will have.

Honeypot Lane - 022
Honeypot Lane and Weald Road (St Faith's Walk) is used by residents to relax, walk their dogs and enjoy the fresh air. It separates the existing houses between Honepypot Lane and Borromeo way well. If this land is up for development it will become densely populated. The biggest concern in addition to taking away more greenbelt land for all to enjoy is the local infrastructure. Our country roads are not built to take this amount of traffic. We are already grid locked as you head onto London road at the bottom of the high street and encouraging people to drive through Honeypot lane or Weald Road is not going to improve the volume of traffic but make it considerably worse and unpleasant for those who live there. Also schools are a big factor. It is difficult to understand how we will be able to provide more school places for all new residents, given most schools are not based on catchment area and serves an already large area of Brentwood already. On a yearly basis, school subscription for St Peters, St Helen's and St Thomas's, in particular, are oversubscribed.

Doddinghurst - 023A and 023B
Similarly the land here, serves the right balance between being next to the A12 and still making it feel like we live in the countryside, for the residents and people who access the area. Infrastructure is also a big concern. The Doddinghurst Road, leading onto Ongar Road is one of the few main roads we have running through Brentwood. When its busy we are already grid locked at rush hour and weekends, so providing a further 200 homes will not improve things. It was mentioned that public transport could be an option to assist with this, but we are not that well equipped to provide this support network for the distances people travel. Similarly, schools within the Doddinghurst Road area are already oversubscribed, so it would be good to understand how this will be dealt with to ensure all residents in the area and the borough get their first choice, given ECC make a point of championing this.

William Hunter Way - 102 and Chatham Way 040
These car parks serve a number of shoppers/visitors coming in to Brentwood given the central location. Parking is already limited, and it doesn't feel we are serving the community or town well if we remove these car parks. There is a concern it could have a reverse effect on the number of people choosing to come into the town for shopping thus having a negative impact on retail within the high st. Public transport is equally not a simple solution for the needs of the everyday resident i.e. families or the elderly. Creating densely populated areas in close proximity of the town will not add to its character either but will make the town feel overcrowded and chaotic.

Priests Lane - site ref 178 and 044 and Crescent Drive - 186
This land offers existing residents and visitors the space to enjoy our green spaces. By cannibalising this with further development it will only contribute to densely populated areas, more pressure on our roads and school places.

Dunton Hills Garden Village - xxxx
It will be a sad loss to the area if we choose to lose this green space especially for those who currently reside there and play golf in the area. It is understood that this development will be created to run self-sufficiently in terms of expansions of health care, and creation of new schools. However, it needs further exploration around the demographic we choose to attract and if it is anticipated this overspill will go into Basildon and Grays in terms of shopping and transport links for rail and how this will impact residents there. The biggest concern is that if this development goes ahead it will fundamentally change our landscape and population make-up for good.


General comment overall:
From the plans and having spoken to council representatives, it can be seen that there has been careful consideration on where the number of homes can be expanded and over time, in order to try and avoid eating too much into greenbelt and creating a balance within the Borough. Likewise, the plans for creating business in the area is positive. However, that said, it is important to protect the Borough and its greenbelt for future generations to enjoy. It would be good to understand if we can challenge the Government's quota as they will be just looking at ensuring more homes are created rather than how this will affect the Borough for generations to come.

The biggest concern with the expansion overall, in particular, Dunton Hills Garden Village, is how do we ensure we retain the Borough as it currently stands. Overall, Brentwood is considered an affluent town with good primary schools and a traditional high street. It is important that with the constant changes we still maintain this. For example, ensuring we continue to attract the right demographic i.e. professionals and families and those from retirement age who will value and look after the Borough's future, as well as developing homes that are in keeping with the local area (i.e. red brick homes, rather than continual modern architecture which appears to be springing up).

Having the infrastructure such as roads, schools and healthcare to support such an expansion and increasing population is also important, in particular, within the urban area of Brentwood. There needs to be clear evidence we are able to provide this before any development commences, as it is already evident that our school places are oversubscribed, and our roads are already congested, in particular Ongar Road and Shenfield Road. Public transport cannot just be the simple answer nor simply building new roads. We cannot model solutions on what London offers transport wise, because we are within the London corridor. We are still very much a Borough in the countryside and we should make every effort to protect this and the quality of life for all now and for the future.

There is also reference in the documentation of the local plans for entertainment. If this is to be considered we need to strike the balance with making it for all to enjoy, without creating additional issues such as crime and rubbish.

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

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

See attached.

See attached.

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