The number of dwellings proposed for each site around the centre of Brentwood suggests small dwellings with increased population requirements. Flats seem to be a common theme and there is a proliferation of them already. While I recognise people need to live somewhere, there is little evidence that due consideration has been given to the infrastructure. Living the experience, it is impossible to get a GP appointment; dentists are equally difficult to access, many refusing to take on more patients. The roads are increasingly impassable due to the sheer weight of traffic and it is likely that many of the flats put up will have limited parking which means increased parking on pavements and local roads, adding to the problem. The roads and pavements are in poor repair already without the additional numbers proposed for Brentwood.
There is little said about the retail needs of the town. It is increasingly obvious, that Sainsburys is not coping with the demand and the retail in Brentwood offers little choice to the local residents. The Bay Tree Centre has been largely neglected and the move to remove BM and eventually Wilkinsons so more flats can be built will force residents to shop elsewhere, further destroying the community and will go against the needs of vulnerable residents who may not have the option. The suggestion that William Hunter Way site will provide retail space as well as housing has already been proposed before with huge wastes of public money after the whole plan collapsed. Are we really to believe that there will be good retail provision? Added to this if you remove all the car parks, the suggestion is we do not need them, as there will be no shops to visit! The Government focus is solely on housing at all costs and not the living experience or quality of life of those who have to live there. The plans suggest to me that this has not been considered for those who live close to the centre and I know from bitter experience, how poorly the Brentwood Borough Council function, with poor processes, lack of transparency, and generally ignoring the needs of the local residents.
I am writing this with no doubt in my mind that this is futile, as I am sure all the other objections are. This is merely a tick box exercise. Those who should represent the needs of the local residents have not so for many years.

Having read your draft plan, I find it very difficult to reconcile proposals for the brownfield land within Brentwood urban area.
1. Wates Way, Western Road and William Hunter Way are situated within a stones throw of each other, in the most congested part of town. Here, there is a proposal to construct an estimated dwelling yield of 425. These sites between them have a comparable developable area to The Drive (2.38 ha), yet the dwelling yield there is only 123. That is approximately three times fewer in a comparable area.
2. The two proposals for Shenfield (Crescent Drive and the Eagle and Child pub) equate to a gross site of 1.78 ha and a developable area of 1.63 ha. Despite this sizeable area of land, only 75 dwellings are proposed. This is a much larger area than the William Hunter Way site, where the dwelling yield is estimated at up to 300.
3. Of sites with a similar or greater developable area as William Hunter Way, the estimated dwelling yield is substantially smaller, with Crescent Drive only expecting a dwelling yield of 55 and the council depot (whose area is much larger than William Hunter Way) expecting a dwelling yield of just 123.

I understand the need for development and housing. I would like for my children to be able to be residents of Brentwood should they wish. However, I simply do not understand these figures. They are anomalous. Too much development is being concentrated in too small an area which happens to be in the centre of the most congested parts of the town. Shenfield appears to very limited development proposals. Why is there such a concentration of development in the centre of town? The William Hunter Way site simply does not have the capacity for a dwelling yield of 300. Why are the dwelling yields in other areas much smaller by comparison? Can you please explain this? It does not appear to add up.

I am re-emailing my previous comments as I feel that they are still relevant.


1. It would appear that the Council has allocated a number of its Car parks, as land suitable for building dwellings. This includes the car parks in Westbury Road, Chatham Way and William Hunter Way. This creates two problems:

a) In fill like this does not provide an attractive environment - either for the new residents or existing residents.
b) There does not seem to be clear provision of new/alternative car parking to replace the lost spaces. Where are visitors/shoppers supposed to park? Where do Brentwood workers park, long-stay? Its difficult enough at present.

I was told a few years ago that there was a waiting list for long-term parking annual permits: a friend asked to park on my drive because he couldn't park in Brentwood while he worked. Also, I know one retailer who received £3,000 worth of parking fines for parking his work van at the back of his shop, because he could no longer get a parking permit for a local car park. He has since closed the shop in Brentwood High Street.

* The Council removed the small free parking bay at the end of the High Street, which allowed for 30 minutes of shopping - very appropriate for the types of shops directly next to this bay. Unsurprisingly, a number of these have now shut - the shoe repairers, the florist, the fruit and veg shop etc which were independent shops. The Council claims to encourage these in section 8.37.
S. 8.37 refers to Brentwood Town Centre attracting many visitors for a variety of reasons including a high quality shopping environment. The current empty units are unattractive, and the choices of retailers who have recently taken some of the larger spaces are not conducive to an interesting and up-market shopping experience. And if, as per s. 8.56 the Council "seeks to retain existing large retail units as they can be a major driver of footfall" why did it allow The Dairyman and Wildwood to take the larger retail sites when they became vacant?

* Brentwood is too expensive and not an attractive enough shopping area with its difficult-to-find and very expensive when-you-do-find-it parking. If I needed to drive to shops, I would drive to Upminster which has lovely shops, a choice of supermarkets and cheap, available parking. There is always Lakeside. Or, I would drive further afield for a much wider choice of niche shops, for example to Tunbridge Wells, or Cambridge.

2. Section 8 discusses that the town apparently requires more retail units and section 5.74 states that the existing vacant units are not sufficient to provide for the requirement.
There are currently at least 20 empty units in the High Street, Bay Tree Centre, Kings Road and Chapel Ruins area. Why can these not be filled first? Can these be adapted (if smaller or larger units are desired) for use by retailers, with their advance agreement, so that shopping in Brentwood is an attractive proposition.

3. The consultation for the semi-pedestrianisation of the High Street was largely ignored by the Council, who appeared determined to press ahead regardless of public opinion. The subsequent decision to re-surface the High Street has been an expensive disaster. The road needs extensive, expensive repairs and although its appearance is pleasing, it was not necessary. Please do not make
the same mistake of ignoring public opinion.

4. Regarding a cinema - something that has been promised for the last 15+ years. We still don't have a cinema in the town, which is a great shame. I still don't understand why this cannot be at the Brentwood Sports and Leisure Centre where there is the space for a new building, and the parking that would be needed. I have been told that one concern is "already congested roads" but I don't agree that the roads are congested towards the Brentwood Centre. In fact, if the cinema were built in William Hunter Way, the increased traffic in William Hunter Way, Western Avenue and Weald Road, including the crossroads junctions with the High Street would be worse.

5. What is happening with the space that has been boarded up since the demolition of the Grade 11 listed building that was the Sir Charles Napier pub? It is very ugly at the moment, and a waste of development space that is sorely needed. This requires development so that it is both attractive and useful.

6. Brentwood needs some open spaces and to retain its Victorian market town feel. The little "green area" in Kings Road makes such a difference and more like this would be very welcome.

7. Re. resurfacing the High street : Not only did this close the High Street for nearly a year causing major sales problems for many retailers, but it also means that you cannot cycle in the High Street, and nor can there be the annual Cycle Race that used to occur.

kind regards
Susan Marigold

I am writing to oppose the proposed development of 300 flats on William Hunter Way site. I cannot understand how you can contemplate such a huge development on such a small site. The traffic in Brentwood is bad enough at the moment. Parking will be a huge issue, where do you suggest shoppers and workers coming to Brentwood will park, surely this will affect the economy if there is no parking. We already have lots of empty shops this will only exacerbate if people have no parking facilities. There does not seem to be any consideration for medical facilities the G.P. surgeries would not be able to support a further increase in population they are already at breaking point.
I do hope you take these comments into consideration.
Kind regards

The consultation considers that the site at William Hunter Way is capable of delivering around 300 residencies. This is despite it being considerably smaller than a number of other plots that have much lower development potential in terms of unit output.
There is no mention in the plan that identifies the TYPE of housing being proposed for each site just the unit numbers.
Given the numbers at William Hunter Way I assume that the proposed development is of the high rise variety, likely to be made up of a number of tower blocks.
Given the obvious impact to residents of North Road Avenue and Western Road in terms of the build and loss of privacy I would like to know:
* Why isn't the proposed building types included in the plan?
* If any of the potential buildings are high rise will there be a limit on the height/number of storeys?
* How do you propose to protect the privacy of local residents?
* How will you mitigate the impact of such building work on local residents

In addition I would like to know what the plan is for parking provision if the WHW site is lost to the development.

I moved to Brentwood because it is one of the few places not blighted by this type of high rise - high capacity housing. To be so close to the centre of town and not be overlooked is rare and valuable to the residents. Brentwood has CHARM. It is in real danger of losing that charm if this development goes ahead.

The consultation considers that the site at William Hunter Way is capable of delivering around 300 residencies. This is despite it being considerably smaller than a number of other plots that have much lower development potential in terms of unit output.
There is no mention in the plan that identifies the TYPE of housing being proposed for each site just the unit numbers.
Given the numbers at William Hunter Way I assume that the proposed development is of the high rise variety, likely to be made up of a number of tower blocks.
Given the obvious impact to residents of North Road Avenue and Western Road in terms of the build and loss of privacy I would like to know:
* Why isn't the proposed building types included in the plan?
* If any of the potential buildings are high rise will there be a limit on the height/number of storeys?
* How do you propose to protect the privacy of local residents?
* How will you mitigate the impact of such building work on local residents

In addition I would like to know what the plan is for parking provision if the WHW site is lost to the development.

I moved to Brentwood because it is one of the few places not blighted by this type of high rise - high capacity housing. To be so close to the centre of town and not be overlooked is rare and valuable to the residents. Brentwood has CHARM. It is in real danger of losing that charm if this development goes ahead.

The consultation considers that the site at William Hunter Way is capable of delivering around 300 residencies. This is despite it being considerably smaller than a number of other plots that have much lower development potential in terms of unit output.
There is no mention in the plan that identifies the TYPE of housing being proposed for each site just the unit numbers.
Given the numbers at William Hunter Way I assume that the proposed development is of the high rise variety, likely to be made up of a number of tower blocks.
Given the obvious impact to residents of North Road Avenue and Western Road in terms of the build and loss of privacy I would like to know:
* Why isn't the proposed building types included in the plan?
* If any of the potential buildings are high rise will there be a limit on the height/number of storeys?
* How do you propose to protect the privacy of local residents?
* How will you mitigate the impact of such building work on local residents

In addition I would like to know what the plan is for parking provision if the WHW site is lost to the development.

I moved to Brentwood because it is one of the few places not blighted by this type of high rise - high capacity housing. To be so close to the centre of town and not be overlooked is rare and valuable to the residents. Brentwood has CHARM. It is in real danger of losing that charm if this development goes ahead.

The healthcare section seems to provide little detail how these essential services will actually be provided. What is required is more GP's and hospital beds for the expanded population. I don't believe online services are going to be of use when it is impossible to get through to an overstretched GP practice already. We need clear guidance on how our expanded community will be cared for and how these GP's and beds will actually be provided.

SITE 102- WILLIAM HUNTER WAY CAR PARK = Site is an astonishingly poor choice. With the expanded population and shoppers wishing to visit the town where will people park? From Kelvedon Hatch we have a sparse bus service already. Using the car is the only option especially if wanting to visit in the evening for dinner. With the expanded use of the railway especially what facilities will there be? If we wish our town to be prosperous and want people to come and spend there hard earned money, we need to give them the opportunity to park. Otherwise they will just order online or visit lakeside where there are all the shops and free parking.

SITES 194 & 075B - I object to these sites do the the existing pressure that will be put on to local services and roads and the small overstretched GP surgery supporting the local community.

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

6,000 new homes in bentwood will put an intolerable strain on the already creaking infrastructure in Brentwood. The traffic jams especially along the Ongar road at Peak times are already unacceptable. The planning of housing on the Hopefield Animal Sanctuary site which has one road in and out, cannot have been carefully considered because the impact on the traffic when there are already Four schools along this road, will cause chaos. Parking in Brentwood at peak times is difficult. All the car parks are full. I cannot understand why then houses are going to be built on the William Hunter Way car park, so where are shoppers expected to park, this has to be a terrible decision. Brentwod is a small town! Most of the housing will be unaffordable for young people when flats are being sold currently for at least £350,000.!

Green belt land will be disappearing, traffic jams worse which in turn will lead to a decline in air quality, our open spaces we currently enjoy will be lost and our wildlife under threat which means a destruction in the quality of life for Brentwood's inhabitants. The only reason I can see for this badly planned housing strategy is that someone is going to be making a lot of money out of it.

I have no reservations in expressing my anger at Brentwood councils housing plans, they need to be rethought as a matter of urgency.

Dear Sir / Madam,

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

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

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

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

why no lift to platform 4 at Brentwood station?

why no foitpath to weald and throndon country parks?

why £5 to park in the above 2 parks?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is all folks!

Many thanks

Development of car parks:

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

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

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

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

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

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

See attached.

See attached.

See attached.

Object. Roads through Brentwood from Pilgrims Hatch direction are already jammed. These proposals would only increase traffic. Our High Street is precious to us, if it is to survive, it needs car parks and more thought regarding the Baytree Centre and the empty shops.

See attached.

See attached.

Regarding Brentwood Town Centre and William Hunter Way: there is no green space for access (excluding around the church). When Sainsbury's was built green space was lost and it would be a real asset to have a piazza type pace (ideally with children play area) at the centre of the town for use by shoppers workers as lunch breaks etc. A tiny green lung.

Whilst recommending sites which possess clear, defensible boundaries to prevent urban sprawl, more suitable brown field sites should be chosen such as Clapgate at Stondon Massey. Am concerned that unsustainable brownfield sites have been allocated eg: William Hunter Way car park. Residents need to park to sustain the town, buses are no good with heavy shopping.
Development there will clog up Western Road (part of the towns unofficial ring road) and cramped junction with Weald Road and the tiny space between that junction and the traffic lights on the High Road,
Ignoring more sustainable brownfield sites will give weight to my fears that the Governments main aim is to gradually dismantle the Metropolitan Green belt to expand London into Essex.

Site 102: If houses are built on the car park, where are people going to park for the High Street, the at park at the back of Baytree Centre will not hold all the cars, people will go elsewhere to shop.
Site 023A,B: If you build 200 houses on these sites would it not be a good idea if there was a good bus service to town as of 17/18 February 2018 the 37 bus service was rerouted down Ongar Road leaving only the 61 bus from Blackmore to service Doddinghurst Road.

1 General: for a nonprofessional person the document is full of acronyms and hard to understand.
2 There is no glossary of terms (eg C2C facilities, page 30, Employment site?)
3 Generally I support the plan with a few observations/provisos
Site 178 I object unless it will be used to expand /provide facilities for the Endeavor school and or Hogarth Primary school.
Site 102 - masterplan should include common/community spaces, not just dwellings, shops and car park.
site 037 should e reduced to preserve the LoWS or plan around it.

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.

William Hunter Way Car Park
Any development on WHW should include the same number of parking spaces, examples can be seen in Hyde Park and Chelmsford.
Shenfield Station needs to improve:
car parking by excavation from Hutton Mount at ground level, and maintaining that level as the underground level at the present car park site, providing parking at no environmental cost of inconvenience to adjacent residents.
I previously suggested free access to the back of the station and the taxi rank at the back with a covered walkway to the car park, this would prevent parking on the access road. If this had been negotiated with Crossrail it would have eliminated the need for the dangerous obelisk under the bridge for cyclists to negotiate. It would also enable drop-off and parking for elderly/disabled people.
One more disaster is the development at Mountnessing roundabout where the council has approved the high density development adjacent to the A12 with its CO2 gas density, subsequent health issues.

In the main the plan seems quite good and we know more home have to be built. However, we are concerned about GPS surgeries. The cottage hospital should have a walk in clinic, Harold Wood has one. It would take stress from GPs and main hospitals.
We are concerned about parking.

Will any of the new build flats/houses be really affordable? They are often classes as luxury.

We have been told we will have another superstore and a cinema in Brentwood. We need them and more retail shops. Empty ones become eating places which is a joke. There are many elderly people in Brentwood that so not shop on line so to get a choice of shops or they go to Billericay, Romford or Lakeside which is not acceptable.