number of dwellings considering the size of the development area is high, in an already busy traffic area. moving car parking to another site seems pointless.

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

As a local resident, the impact on traffic, local services, disruption and reduction of car parking for the town shops would be catastrophic. It would pretty much kill off trade and visitors and be the nail in the coffin for the end of Brentwood high street.

I cannot comprehend why you would choose the car park at William Hunter Way as a preferred site for housing development. It is the most convenient car park to use when visiting Brentwood high street and the one used by most people for that reason. The car park is always busy and has 407 parking spaces. If you were to close the car park and develop it for housing where would all the consumers visiting Brentwood high street park? I also note from reading the plan that this is not the only car park that has been proposed as a preferred site for housing development. In total four car parks within Brentwood are on the preferred site list. Clearly you do not want people to visit and shop in Brentwood high street as if you go ahead with your plans there will be nowhere for anyone to park! This will ultimately mean that consumers will be forced to shop, eat and drink elsewhere. This will lead to reduced footfall and revenue for the high street shops, restaurants and bars, leading eventually to closure. Our high street should be protected and developed not put at risk by removing vital car parking.

This car park is frequently full and provides parking for the overflow from the inadequate parking at Sainsburys and people using the High Street shops and eateries. The High Street is in jeopardy if you take this parking away. As a site constraint you have stated that sufficient levels of parking will need to be provided- who for, the occupants of the 179+ houses or people trying to use the Brentwood shops? If we can't park in Brentwood the High Street will die and any retail development you build will be doomed.

This site has been an issue since moved to the brorough 30 years ago .For the last twenty years residents have been promised a cinema on the site to replace that closed in the old Chapel High.

As I have said in relation to other sites, I oppose any reduction in the number of carparking spaces in the town centre. These should actually be increased to accommodate the demand generated by the large number of additional dwellings proposed elsewhere. But if this site is to be developed at all, I would like the cinema that hasbeen promosed for the last two decades to actually be provided.

Where are people from the outlying villages meant to park when going to work or shopping?

Public transport is not regular enough to be reliable.

Should the council not wait until Brexit before deciding what housing needs will be in 2033.

As with the proposed closure of Chatham Way car park, this would further impact on people coming into our town to spend much needed money. A loss which would almost certainly be felt by all Council Tax payers as the council tries to make up the loss of revenues these car parks bring in.

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

This scheme offers housing density options of between 137 and 230 units per HA , will there be room for the retail / commercial scheme that has been proposed over the years . I guess this would have to be a tower block to go with the suggested option for the other adjacent site on western road .

Where will people park their vehicles? Also there is a need for an open air meeting point - none exist at present

Generally supportive of the re-development of this site as proposed except that the proportion of the town's total car parking space which this site represents will require serious consideration. Generally, the Council has not satisfactorily dealt with the issue of car parking in the town.

As residents of Brentwood for over 40 years we understand the need to build new houses.To build on the towns car parks however does not appear to be the answer. BBC's VISION clearly states that Brentwood will continue to thrive and will provide a focus for retail, employment and exciting arts and cultural opportunities.How can this be if local residents and visitors to the area have no where to park.Parking spaces will need to be provided for the 300 proposed new homes.Where will everyone else park!!! BRENTWOOD WOULD GRIND TO A HALT IF THIS GOES AHEAD.

This area is need for public parking and not housing.

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

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

This proposal is outrageous !

1. Western Road and William-Hunter Way are always congested, with gridlocks during morning rush-hour and school pick-up/drop times (contrary to what your 'study' suggests).

Further development/housing in car park would lead to more pressure on existing infrastructure, with increased gridlock and delays.

Additionally, increased congestion will be detrimental to both care home on Western Road and fire station on North Road.

2. The proposed development envisages multi-storey buildings. All existing housing is one/two storeyed. This will change the character and feel of existing communities.

Also, new development will lead to reduced privacy (as existing homes and gardens will be overlooked).

Historic Environment Comment -
These all form car parks within the historic town centre. Consideration will need to be given to alterative car parking provision and the potential for the loss of these car parking area to create either large areas of on-street parking or to discourage people from using the town centre. The former has the potential to unduly impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, whilst the latter has the potential to harm the viability of listed buildings in commercial use

Historic Environment Comment -
Although none of these are objectionable in principle, they occupy important town centre locations and will need to be considered holistically as opposed to in isolation from each other

Historic Environment Comment -
Constraint: Archaeological potential for the historic core of Brentwood

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

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

I am writing with regards to the Honeypot Lane development. As a family we are strongly opposed to this. I live in Brook Road. We moved to the area 7 years ago from South Woodford and one of the main attractions was the large open space around the immediate area. We moved here from South Woodford. We bought our house in South Woodford taking into consideration the area around and unfortunately a large development was built on the land behind our house. I can't even begin to describe the difference in the through traffic, the effect on parking, the noise and the overall negative effect it had on what we used to enjoy about the area we lived in and this was the main reason we moved to a different area that offered all of the things that were no longer offered to us. Brook Road is already becoming a bit of a traffic through road, a lot more so than it used to be since the local pubs and restaurants started charging for their car parks to stop the people in the offices in Spital Road parking there all day. They now use Brook Road to park their cars. More traffic as a result of this development will cause more disruption and make it even more unsafe for our children in the whole of the Homesteads development. There are lots of children who live here and to potentially put them in more danger is unacceptable. The increased traffic will also have a huge negative effect on the state of our already very dangerous roads. I have lost count of the number of potholes and cracks and the general state of our roads in the Homesteads which is unsafe for both vehicles and pedestrians. More traffic will just add to this problem. This is both unfair and unacceptable. What will become of St Peter's school? Where will the residents of the new development send their children? There simply isn't the infrastructure to cope with this. Where will the new residents see a GP? All of the surgeries in Brentwood are full to the brim and find it difficult to cope with what is already a struggle to see patients in a timely manner. In the high street, where will everybody park? With the proposed developments on Chatham Way and William Hunter Way car parks it's going to be a huge challenge and have a huge impact on the already struggling businesses in our rapidly declining High Street. We strongly oppose this development.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Paragraphs 41-42:
I oppose the 36% upward adjustment to the housing target made on the grounds of "affordability". The lack of affordable housing is due to prices being inflated by an unholy alliance of banks, estate agents, and government subsidy (cf. "Help to Buy" schemes). Even in London and the "Home Counties", there are many empty dwellings. Councils and government should concentrate on bringing more of these empty dwellings into use (the ability to impose a higher rate of Council Tax on such dwellings is one welcome development), instead of destroying the green belt. Within Essex, Brentwood will always command a premium, owing to its excellent transport links (both road and rail, as acknowledged in paragraph 26), no matter how much the supply of housing and employment land is increased. As a 25-year-old, I wish to make it clear that I object in the strongest terms to attempts at justifying destruction of the green belt in the name of "young people".

Sites 010, 022, 023A, 023B, 027, 032, 034, 075B, 076, 077, 079A, 083, 085B, 087, 106, 128, 158, 194, 200, 235, 263, 276, 294:

I oppose any encroachment on the green belt. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the "permanence" and "openness" of the green belt are vital facets of its integrity. Paragraphs 44 and 45 of the NPPF also make clear that Objectively Assessed Housing Need is not the only pertinent factor in determining housing targets, and the significant amount of green belt land in the borough would be sufficient justification to set housing targets at a lower level than that suggested by the Objectively Assessed Housing Need (Brentwood's green belt is, according to the council's own strategic growth options development plan, "the sixth highest in England by percentage of total area"). Moreover, it should be observed that developers are failing to implement planning permissions already obtained (cf. section on Historic Building Rates, as described by the Council in its responses to Sajid Javid). Until such permissions have been utilised, it is unacceptable to reward developers with more permissions.

In short, I call upon the Council to declare the green belt as an absolute constraint (cf. draft local plan in 2013), notwithstanding the alleged risk of being found "structurally unsound". It is my view that the Council is exaggerating such a risk: past comments by Eric Pickles, former MP for Brentwood & Ongar, who was the minister responsible for implementing major legislative changes in the so-called "localism agenda", have made clear that the green belt is a sound reason for reducing the housing targets.

Paragraph 63:

The Brentwood Town Centre Design Plan (2017) has some promising ideas. However, it could be more ambitious in the density proposed. Given the high demand for housing and the excellent transport connections in the town centre, there should be a presumption in favour of taller buildings (preserving the green belt is far more important than preserving the so-called "skyline"), provided that they do not impinge upon the "right to light" of existing dwellings and gardens.

Sites 002, 003, 039, 040, 041, 081, 102, 117A, 117B, 186:

In general, I support the development of these sites, provided that they are developed in a manner that does not necessitate significant felling of trees now or in the future. Woodland is of immense value aesthetically, recreationally, and environmentally. Brentwood benefits from having woodland within very easy reach, and it is vital that this remains the case, including in the urban parts not designated as "green belt".
As stated in my comment on paragraph 63, I believe that the density proposed for these sites could be higher. Higher densities on these brownfield sites would then obviate any alleged need to develop other sites.

Site 102:

I support an approach that prioritises the residential facet, maximising the number of dwellings, subject to respecting the "right to light" of adjacent properties. I believe that more than 300 residential dwellings could and should be built here. The need for more medium-sized commercial units (cf. Brentwood Town Centre Design Plan (2017)) can be realised through the repurposing/refurbishment of existing commercial buildings, including the Baytree Centre, which has never been at full occupation.

Sites 044 and 178:

Although not green belt, these sites offer open space within the urban area, and are thus of immense value in their present state. Furthermore, existing infrastructure is not amenable to development — public transport in the vicinity is almost non-existent, and the roads would struggle to accommodate the extra traffic.

Employment Sites 079C, 101A, 187, 200:

I oppose any encroachment on the green belt. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear that the "permanence" and "openness" of the green belt are vital facets of its integrity.
The Council could consider larger allocations in the town centre, especially in underutilised retail areas such as the Baytree Centre.
I call upon the Council to declare the green belt as an absolute constraint (cf. draft local plan in 2013), notwithstanding the alleged risk of being found "structurally unsound". It is my view that the Council is exaggerating such a risk: past comments by Eric Pickles, former MP for Brentwood & Ongar, who was the minister responsible for implementing major legislative changes in the so-called "localism agenda", have made clear that the green belt is a sound reason for reducing targets.

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.